Allowed

Babadeen @ Arun v. State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC3 Jul 2024/3107/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 3107 of 2024, the Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench) granted bail to Babadeen @ Arun in a crime involving rape and POCSO charges. The Court noted that a witness (P.W.2) had changed her version and made allegations against another person during cross-examination, and the victim failed to appear for her cross-examination. Bail was granted on personal bond and

What did the court decide?

Released on bail on furnishing personal bond and two reliable sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned.

Babadeen @ Arun Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy… — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:45350

¶2

Court No. - 17

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 3107 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Babadeen @ Arun Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Rama Kant Dixit,Ram Vishal Tripathi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Rajeev Singh,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A for the State of U.P. and perused the record.

¶7

The present bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant in Case Crime No.182 of 2019, under Sections 376 I.P.C. & Section 3/4 POCSO Act, Police Station - Bhinga, District - Shrawasti, with the prayer to enlarge him on bail.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is an innocent person and has been falsely implicated in the case on the behest of uncle of the victim and he is in jail since 5.3.2023. He further submits that cross examination of P.W.1, victim was going on and on her request, next date was fixed and thereafter, she did not come and one day, counsel for the applicant was not present, as a result, cross examination was closed. He also submits that cross examination of P.W.1 is still pending but she is not being called after 17.6.2022, and P.W.2 has already been examined before the trial court, in which, she changed her version and made allegations against Nebulal for beating. He further submits that he does not have any criminal antecedent and charge sheet has already been filed. He further submits that he will not involve in any illegal activities in the future. In these circumstances, the applicant is entitled for bail. In case of being enlarged on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶9

Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for grant of bail and submits that after detail investigation, sufÏcient evidences were collected and charge sheet was submitted but he does not dispute the

¶10

fact that P.W. 2 in her cross examination made allegations against Nebulal.

¶11

Considering the rival submissions of learned counsel for applicant, learned A.G.A., material available on record, contents of F.I.R., deposition of P.W.1 & 2, as P.W.2 has developed a new case before the trial court, therefore, I am of the view that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail.

¶12

Let applicant - Babadeen @ Arun - be released on bail in aforesaid Case Crime, on his furnishing personal bond and two reliable sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions:-

¶13

(i) The applicant shall not commit or participate in any offence similar to the offence of which he is accused, or suspected, of the commission of which he is suspected.

¶14

(ii) 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 ofÏcer or tamper with the evidence.

¶15

(iii) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the date fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in Court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the Trial Court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law.

¶16

(iv) The applicant shall remain present before the Trial Court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufÏcient cause, the Trial Court may proceed against him under Section 229-A IPC.

¶17

(v) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C., may be issued and if applicant fails to appear before the Court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the Trial Court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under Section 174-A

¶18

IPC.

¶19

(vi) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the Trial Court on dates fixed for (1) opening of the case, (2) framing of charge and (3) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. If in the opinion of the Trial Court absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufÏcient cause, then it shall be open for the Trial Court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law.

¶20

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.

¶21

Order Date :- 3.7.2024 Gaurav/-

¶22

Digitally signed by :- GAURAV PAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Babadeen @ Arun v. State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Babadeen @ Arun v. State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Deptt. 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

Madhevendra Singh Vs Sri Ashok Kumar, Aqgarwal, Engineer in Chief Parkalp/Niyojan Public Works Deptt. Lko.

Mohd. Naseem Uddin Vs Kunal Silku, Dir. Training and Employment U.P. Lko. and Another

Mansoor Ahamad @ Masroor Ahamad Vs Mala Srivastava, District Magistrate, Rae Bareli

Raj Rastogi @ Jagdamba Prasad Rastogi Vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Home, U.P. Lucknow

Karm Ruchi Singh Somvanshi Vs Sri Vijay Pratap Singh, Basic Shiksha Adhikari, Hardoi

Chandraprakash Vs Mr. Ranvijay Singh, Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lko.