Allowed

Naveen Alias Navneet Sharma v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC4 Oct 2024ABAIL/9578/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge allowed anticipatory bail to an applicant in a thana complaint case under IPC and POCSO after relying on Apex Court law. Bail granted subject to personal bond with two sureties and standard conditions.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail allowed until conclusion of trial on furnishing personal bond with two sureties, subject to conditions regarding interrogation, non-tampering, and appearance before trial court.

Naveen Alias Navneet Sharma vs State of U.P… — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:170471

¶2

Court No. - 71

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 9578 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Naveen Alias Navneet Sharma Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Ajay Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Mayank Kumar Jain,J.

¶6

Learned AGA informed the Court that service of notice upon opposite party no.2 is sufficient.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA for the State and perused the material available on record.

¶8

Present anticipatory bail application has been filed by the applicant, with a prayer to enlarge him on anticipatory bail in Complaint Case No.48 of 2023, under Sections 376, 342 of IPC and Section 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, Police Station Ahmadgarh, District Bulandshahr.

¶9

It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is further submitted that after investigation, a final report was submitted in the present case. Thereafter, a protest petition was filed, which was treated as a complaint case. It has been argued that the present FIR was lodged through an application under Section 156 (3) of Cr PC after a delay of about two months. There is no medical evidence to support the prosecution story. During investigation, solitary witness, namely, Rakesh, who is said to be the maternal uncle of the victim, has been examined and he completely denied the allegations made in the FIR. During investigation, some villagers were also examined, they also denied the allegations made in the FIR. The reason for making such false complaint against the applicant is that he made a complaint against the informant about her wrong doing in the locality, as she is not a lady of good character. It has been also submitted that the summoning order has been passed by the learned trial Court without appreciating the evidence in right prospective. The applicant is maliciously being prosecuted in the present case due to ulterior motive and has an apprehension of his arrest. The applicant has nothing to do with the said offence as alleged by the

¶10

prosecution.

¶11

Per contra, learned AGA opposed the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail.

¶12

On due consideration to the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Sushila Aggarwal Vs. State (NCT of Delhi)-2020 SCC online SC 98, the applicant is entitled to be granted anticipatory bail in this case.

¶13

Without expressing any opinion upon ultimate merits of the case either way, which may adversely affect the trial of the case, the anticipatory bail application of the applicant is allowed.

¶14

In the event of his arrest, applicant - Naveen alias Navneet Sharma, involved in the aforesaid case crime, shall be released on anticipatory bail till conclusion of trial, on furnishing a personal bond with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Presiding Officer/Court Concerned, with the conditions that:-

¶15

i. that the applicant shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required;

¶16

ii. that 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;

¶17

iii. that the applicant shall not leave India without previous permission of the court;

¶18

iv. that the applicant shall not tamper with the evidence during the trial;

¶19

v. that the applicant shall not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness;

¶20

vi. that the applicant shall appear before the trial court on each date fixed unless personal presence is exempted;

¶21

vii. that the applicant shall not leave India without prior permission of the Court concerned and, if he has a Passport, the same shall be deposited by him before the SSP/SP concerned.

¶22

viii. that the applicant shall appear before the trial court on every date to be fixed in the matter through his counsel or personally failing which, this order shall be treated as non-est.

¶23

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the court concerned shall have a liberty to cancel the bail granted to the

¶24

applicant.

¶25

It is made clear that the observations made in granting anticipatory bail to the applicant shall not, in any way, affect the learned trial Judge in forming his independent opinion based on the testimony of the witnesses.

¶26

Order Date :- 24.10.2024 RKK/-

¶27

Digitally signed by :- RAJ KUMAR KANNAUJIA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Naveen Alias Navneet Sharma v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Naveen Alias Navneet Sharma v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Mukesh Alias Mukesh Kumar vs State of U.P.

Anand Yadav Alias Nande vs State of Up and Another

Bhola Yadav vs State of U.P. and Another

Amit vs State of Up and Another

Mobin Ali vs State of U.P. and Another

Smt Neetu Sachan vs State of U.P.