Allowed

Sharafat Ali Alias Sarafraz v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home Civil Sectt. Lko and 3 Others

Allahabad HC29 Jan 2024/139/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The single judge allowed an anticipatory bail application filed by Sharafat Ali, Alias Sarafraz. The court noted the irregular emergence of the applicant's name in the prosecutrix's 164 statement compared to her 161 statement, alleging false implication to shield a co-accused.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted subject to bond of Rs. 50,000 and two sureties, contingent on appearance within 20 days.

Sharafat Ali Alias Sarafraz Vs State of U.P… — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:7947

¶2

Court No. - 15

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 139 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Sharafat Ali Alias Sarafraz Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home Civil Sectt. Lko And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Anand Kumar Srivastava

¶5

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶6

Hon'ble Mohd. Faiz Alam Khan,J.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶8

Learned A.G.A. informs that opposite party no. 2/informant has been personally/sufficiently served, however, he is not represented.

¶9

This application has been moved by the applicant- Sharafat Ali Alias Sarafraz for grant of anticipatory bail in FIR/Case Crime No.086 of 2022, under Sections 354-A, 366-A and 363 IPC read with Section 7/8 of the protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, lodged at Police Station Gaindas Bujurg, District Balarampur.

¶10

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that it is a case of false implication. The FIR of this case has been lodged by father of the prosecutrix after recovery of the prosecutrix against coaccused, Mannan, alleging therein that on

¶11

15.11.2022 when the informant was not present at his home, his daughter got missing and, it was informed to him by the villagers that she has been seen going in a bus along with co-accused, Mannan. However, he along with other persons had gone to the railway station Gonda and found his daughter with named accused, Mannan, who after seeing them, fled away from the scene and thereafter the informant has lodged the FIR by presenting himself and his daughter at the police station. In the statement of the prosecutrix recorded under Section 161 CrPC, she has supported the allegation of the FIR and all the allegations were levelled against the named accused- Mannan, however, in her statement recorded under Section 164 CrPC, she has developed a new story wherein apart from that named accused- Mannan, she has also alleged allegation of abduction against the applicant.

¶12

Highlighting the above, it is vehemently submitted that the prosecutrix has given the statement under Section 164 CrPC so as to shield the main accused- Mannan, with whom she was having love affair, which is also evident from the statement of the prosecutrix recorded under Section 161 CrPC as well as from the statement of the informant and FIR as the informant is also an eye-witness of recovery of the prosecutrix. It is also submitted that identically placed coaccused- Saddam has been granted the facility of anticipatory bail vide order dated 04.07.2023 passed by the coordinate Bench of this Court in Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application No.1486 of 2023 and the role of the applicant stands on better footing than co-accusedSaddam, moreover, co-accused- Mannan, who was named in the FIR as well as in the statement

¶13

of the prosecutrix recorded under Section 161 CrPC has been granted regular bail vide order dated 28.04.2023 passed by the coordinate Bench of this Court in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.3406 of 2023. It is also submitted that the applicant undertakes that he will cooperate in the investigation and would remain present before the investigating officer as and when his presence would be required. The applicant is not having any previous criminal history to his credit.

¶14

Learned A.G.A. opposes the prayer of the applicant for grant of anticipatory bail.

¶15

Perusal of record would reveal that the applicant was not named in the FIR and no allegation was made against him in the statement of the prosecutrix recorded under Section 161 CrPC. Admittedly, the informant is an eyewitness of the incident as he has claimed to have recover the prosecutrix from the clutches of the named accused- Mannan and he also in his statement has corroborated the story as shown in the FIR, however, the prosecutrix appears to have changed the version of the incident by implicating the instant applicant and co-accused, namely, Saddam for abducting her. Various submissions have been advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant, including the fact that co-accused Saddam has been granted anticipatory bail, while co-accused- Mannan has been granted regular bail which have been not been refuted by learned counsel for the State.

¶16

Thus, having regard to all the facts and circumstances of the case, on merit as well as on principle of parity, the anticipatory bail application moved on behalf of the applicant-

¶17

Sharafat Ali Alias Sarafraz is hereby allowed in terms that in the event of arrest of the applicant under any process of the trial Court or on his appearance/surrender before the trial Court within 20 days from today i.e. till 18.02.2024, whichever is earlier, he shall be released forthwith on anticipatory bail on his furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court, subject to the following conditions:-

¶18

(i). The applicant, if not arrested earlier, shall appear before the trial court within 20 days from today i.e. till 18.02.2024 and cooperate in the trial and shall not seek any adjournment when the prosecution witness would be in attendance.

¶19

(ii). In case of further investigation or reinvestigation the applicant shall cooperate in the investigation and make himself available as and when required by the Investigating officer of the case, even for the recovery of any fact.

¶20

(iii). The applicant shall not make any attempt to influence the prosecution witnesses and will also not commit any crime during his release on anticipatory bail.

¶21

(iv). The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence and specially when the prosecution witnesses are present in court.

¶22

(v). The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C.

¶23

If in the opinion of the trial court default of any of the condition placed above is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and shall proceed against him/her in accordance with law.

¶24

It is clarified that all the observations contained in this order are only for disposal of this anticipatory bail application and shall not affect the trial proceedings in any manner.

¶25

Order Date :- 29.1.2024 MVS/-

¶26

Digitally signed by :- MANOJ VIKRAM SINGH CHAUHAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Sharafat Ali Alias Sarafraz v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home Civil Sectt. Lko and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sharafat Ali Alias Sarafraz v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home Civil Sectt. 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

Vikas Yadav Vs State of U.P Thru. Secy. Home Deptt. Civil Secrt. Lko. and Another

Shivendra Singh Chauhan Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, District-Lucknow

Vishnu Pratap Tiwari Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 2 Others

Ashik Ali Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lucknow, U.P. and 3 Others

Anoop Kumar Chaudhari Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Home Sectt. Lucknow

Shailesh Kumar @ Shailendra Singh Chauhan Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Sectt. Lko