Allowed

Nadir Jang v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Govt. Lko and 3 Others

Allahabad HC8 Feb 2024/1298/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Fourth bail application in a POCSO/IPC case involving a 16-year-old victim; granted bail on grounds of prolonged custody since November 2020, stalled trial despite prior court directives, and no criminal antecedents.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail upon furnishing personal bonds and two sureties of Rs.20,000/- each with standard conditions; District Court Bahraich directed to accept bail bonds.

Nadir Jang Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin… — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:11553

¶2

Court No. - 12

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 1298 of 2024 Applicant :- Nadir Jang Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Govt. Lko And 3 Others

¶4

Counsel for Applicant :- Mohammad Alishah Faruqi,Ali Hasan,Azizullah Khan,Mohd. Suhail

¶5

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶6

Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J.

¶7

1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned A.G.A. and perused the record. Despite service of notice, no one appeared on behalf of the complainant, opposite party no.2.

¶8

This is the fourth bail application filed by the applicant for enlargement on bail in Case Crime No.380 of 2020, under Sections 363, 366-A, 370, 376-D, 506 IPC and Section 3/4 of POCSO Act, Police Station Payagpur, District Bahraich.

¶9

The first bail application was rejected vide order dated 28.01.2021 passed in Bail No.1002 of 2021. Considering the submission of the victim recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C., the second bail was rejected vide order dated 15.09.2022 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.1446 of 2022 observing that the statement of the prosecutrix be recorded in the court below and thereafter the applicant would be at liberty to approach this Court. The third bail application was rejected on 12.07.2023 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.219 of 2023, directing that the trial be concluded within six months.

¶10

In the light of the abovesaid, the Counsel for the applicant submits that the FIR in question was lodged alleging that the daughter of the informant, who is aged about 16 years, had gone somewhere last night. In the statement under Section 161 of Cr.P.C., the victim had stated that she had become close to the applicant over a passage of time. Their talk had reached to the level of solemnizing the marriage between them. The applicant also stated that she had gone along with co-accused on a motorcycle to Lucknow. It was also stated that the applicant had promised the victim to come and picked up but did not turn up. In the statement under Section 164 of Cr.P.C., the allegations were levelled against the applicant of threatening her and also allegations of physical relation without consent were alleged. The same was also the reason for rejection of the second bail application. Initially in the said statement, the allegations were levelled against three persons, however, in the subsequent statement of the victim recorded on 29.01.2021, it

¶11

was stated that the co-accused Aadil had not done any wrong to her, however, the applicant had done wrong to her. In the light of the said fact, it is argued that despite the directions of this Court, the trial is not proceeding. He also draws my attention to a notification dated 20.04.2021, whereby, the jurisdiction of the court was changed. He argues that in view of the said, the file has not transferred to the court, as a result whereof, the applicant is languishing in jail since 06.11.2020 and his prima facie rights under Article 21 of the Constitution of India have been violated without there being any fault.

¶12

Learned A.G.A. vehemently opposed the bail prayer.

¶13

6. Considering the submissions made at the bar, prima facie , the applicant is languishing in custody since 06.11.2020 without any fault and despite the directions, the trial is not proceeding; apart from the said, the applicant was not accused of any offence as alleged in the statement under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. and coupled with the fact that the applicant has no criminal antecedents, I am of the view that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed .

¶14

7. Let the applicant Nadir Jang be released on bail in the aforesaid first information report on his furnishing personal bonds and two reliable sureties of Rs.20,000/- each to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:

¶15

(a) The applicant shall execute a bond to undertake to attend the hearings;

¶16

(b) The applicant shall not commit any offence similar to the offence of which he is accused or suspected of the commission; and

¶17

(c) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶18

7 . It is directed that the District Court, Bahriach shall accept the bail bond and take appropriate steps for enlarging the applicant in terms of the abovesaid order.

¶19

Order Date :- 8.2.2024 akverma

¶20

Digitally signed by :- ASHOK KUMAR VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Nadir Jang v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Govt. Lko and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nadir Jang v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Govt. Lko and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Ravish Kumar Pandey Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko.

Ravi Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Deptt. U.P. Govt. Civil Sectt. Lko.

Shoaib Vs the State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Govt. U.P. Lko. and Others

Mobin Ahmad Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home, Lko.

Adesh Kumar Yadav Alias Tillu Vs State of U.P. Thru.Prin.Secy. Home

Kavita Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.