Allowed¶10

Pintu Gautam v. State of U.P. Thru.Prin.Secy. Home and 4 Others

Allahabad HC2 Aug 2024/6436/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bail allowed; parity with co-accused Ajay (Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.1816 of 2023, order dated 01.08.2024); FIR No.545 of 2022; PS Biswan, District Sitapur; Sections 363, 366, 376D, 342, 506 IPC; Section 5(g)/6 POCSO Act; no criminal antecedents; custody since 19.11.2022; two sureties of Rs.20,000/- each; applicant Pintu Gautam; opposite party State of U.P.; Justice Pankaj Bhatia; CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. 6436 of 2023; decided 2.8.2024; 2024:AHC-LKO:53044.

What did the court decide?

Enlargement on bail in FIR No.545 of 2022 on furnishing personal bond and two reliable sureties of Rs.20,000/- each, subject to conditions (a)-(c). ¶10

Pintu Gautam Vs State of U.P… — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Allahabad HC (2024)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Enlargement on bail in FIR No.545 of 2022 on furnishing personal bond and two reliable sureties of Rs.20,000/- each, subject to conditions (a)-(c).

¶10

Issue for consideration

Whether the applicant, charged in FIR No.545 of 2022 (Sections 363, 366, 376D, 342, 506 IPC and Section 5(g)/6 of POCSO Act, PS Biswan, District Sitapur), is entitled to be released on bail, given parity of allegations with co-accused Ajay (already enlarged on bail), absence of criminal antecedents, and custody since 19.11.2022.

¶7

Court's answer

Bail granted on parity: the allegations against the applicant are similar to those against co-accused Ajay, who has already been enlarged on bail by this Court.

¶10

Ratio / Principle

The applicant having no criminal antecedents and being in custody since 19.11.2022, the Court held him entitled to be released on bail.

¶10

Key takeaways

Applicant Pintu Gautam to be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties of Rs.20,000/- each, subject to conditions: attendance at hearings, commission of no similar offence, and no inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts so as to dissuade disclosure or tamper with evidence.ratio¶11

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench (Court No. 12) — Pankaj Bhatia, J. (Neutral Citation: 2024:AHC-LKO:53044; Order dated 2.8.2024). Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 6436 of 2023 — Pintu Gautam v. State Of U.P. Thru.Prin.Secy. Home And 4 Others. Bail ALLOWED in FIR No.545 of 2022, Police Station Biswan, District Sitapur, under Sections 363, 366, 376D, 342, 506 IPC and Section 5(g)/6 of POCSO Act. Grounds: (i) allegations against the applicant are similar to those against co-accused Ajay, already enlarged on bail by this Court vide order dated 01.08.2024 in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.1816 of 2023; (ii) no criminal antecedents; (iii) in custody since 19.11.2022. Release directed on personal bond and two reliable sureties of Rs.20,000/- each, subject to conditions of attending hearings, committing no similar offence, and abstaining from inducement, threat or promise to dissuade disclosure of facts or tampering with evidence.

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:53044

¶2

Court No. - 12

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 6436 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Pintu Gautam Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru.Prin.Secy. Home And 4 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Mohit Kumar,Mohd Javed,Rizwanul Haque Ansari Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J.

¶6

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

¶7

2 . The applicant seeks enlargement on bail in FIR No.545 of 2022, under Sections 363, 366, 376D, 342, 506 IPC and Section 5(g)/6 of POCSO Act, Police Station Biswan, District Sitapur.

¶8

3 . It is argued by the Counsel for the applicant that on the same allegation, the co-accused Ajay has been enlarged on bail by this Court vide order dated 01.08.2024 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.1816 of 2023.

¶9

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

¶10

5. Considering the fact that the allegations against the applicant to be similar to the co-accused, who has been enlarged on bail coupled with the fact that the applicant has no criminal antecedents and is languishing in jail since 19.11.2022, I am of the view that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed .

¶11

6. Let the applicant Pintu Gautam be released on bail in the abovesaid first information report number 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:

¶12

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

¶13

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

¶14

(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.

¶15

Order Date :- 2.8.2024 akverma

¶16

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

Pintu Gautam v. State of U.P. Thru.Prin.Secy. Home and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pintu Gautam v. State of U.P. Thru.Prin.Secy. Home and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dinesh Maurya Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home and Others

Anupam Tiwari Alias Mohan Vs the State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Civil Secrtt. U.P. Govt. Lko.

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

Om Prakash Alias Prakash Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home

Mahendra Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Civil Secrett. Lko. and 3 Others

Kamar Ali Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko