In a criminal bail application, the court allowed the second relief regarding an accused in a POCSO case, citing inordinate trial delay and Section 35 mandates as grounds for release on bonds and sureties.
Applicant released on bail by furnishing personal bonds and two reliable sureties of the like amount each.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:5149
Court No. - 12
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 170 of 2024
Applicant :- Sarwan Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Smriti Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J.
1. Supplementary affidavit filed by the applicant today in Court is taken on record.
2 . 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.
3 . The applicant seeks enlargement on bail in S.T. No.79 of 2019 arising out of Case Crime No.153 of 2019, under Sections 363, 366, 376 IPC and Section 3/4 of POCSO Act, Police Station Hasanganj, District Unnao.
4 . This is the second bail application. The first bail application was rejected by this Court vide order dated 08.03.2022 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.8411 of 2021.
5. Submission of the Counsel for the applicant is that initially the FIR was registered alleging that the daughter of the informant was allured by the applicant and was taken away. The age of the victim is disclosed as 14 years. In the statement under Section 161 of Cr.P.C., the victim did not support the prosecution story and admitted that she was in love with the applicant. She further submits that there was a slight variance in the statement under Section 164 of Cr.P.C., alleging the commission of offence of rape.
6 . The Counsel for the applicant further argues that after the rejection of the first bail application, the statement of PW-2, the victim, was recorded wherein she specifically stated that nothing wrong was done to her by the applicant. She further submits that the applicant is in custody since 22.05.2019 and more than four and a half years have passed. The Counsel for the applicant places on record the questionnaire received from the trial court to demonstrate that apart from the three
witnesses, no one has introduced for examination till date. The total number of witnesses are shown to be seven.
7. Learned A.G.A. vehemently opposed the bail prayer.
8. Considering the inordinate delay in trial coupled with the mandate of Section 35(1) and 35(2) of the POCSO Act; the fact that the right of the applicant of speedy trail granted under Article 21 of the Constitution are prima facie violated; the applicant has no criminal antecedents and there is no document on record to finally determined the age of the victim, which is to be seen at the time of trial; the applicant is in custody since 22.05.2019 and there is nothing on record to demonstrate that the applicant if enlarged on bail, would in any way adversely affect the trial and without expressing any opinion on merit, I am of the view that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail. Accordingly, the second bail application is allowed .
9. Let the applicant Sarwan be released on bail in the aforesaid first information report on his furnishing personal bonds and two reliable sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:
(a) The applicant shall execute a bond to undertake to attend the hearings;
(b) The applicant shall not commit any offence similar to the offence of which he is accused or suspected of the commission; and
Order Date :- 18.1.2024 akverma
Digitally signed by :- ASHOK KUMAR VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the applicant is entitled to bail considering the inordinate delay and prima facie violation of Article 21 under the POCSO Act.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Sarwan
State Of U.P.
Pankaj Bhatia
Ashok Kumar Verma
As recorded by the court registry
3 orders share this CNR
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
