Allowed

Akhilesh @ Kallu v. State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Civils Ecrt. Lko. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC2 Feb 2024BAIL/1220/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Allahabad High Court allowed a bail application in a POCSO and IPC case. The court granted bail without deciding on the merits of the case, noting no risk of fleeing or witness tampering, while imposing strict conditions regarding court attendance and witness interference.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail on personal bond with two reliable sureties, subject to strict conditions regarding court attendance and no interference with evidence or witnesses.

Akhilesh @ Kallu vs State of U.P Thru. Prin… — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:35648

¶2

Court No. - 14

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 1220 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Akhilesh @ Kallu Opposite Party :- State Of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Civils Ecrt. Lko. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Raghunath Prasad Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Jaspreet Singh,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned AGA for the State-respondent. It is submitted that notice has been served on the complainant.

¶7

The instant application has been moved seeking bail in respect of Case Crime No.402 of 2023 under Sections 377, 506, IPC & 3/4 POCSO Act, Police Station-Sandi, District Hardoi during trial.

¶8

The submission of the learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the case.

¶9

It is further urged that between the family of the applicant and the complainant there was certain animosity and in order to settle dispute, the applicant has been implicated.

¶10

It is stated that the statement of the victim is not corroborated by the medical evidence. Apart from the fact that the said alleged incident is said to have occurred on 29.08.2023 whereas the FIR has been lodged with delay on 03.09.2023. The medical report is dated 05.09.2023. The diversion in the statement of the victim also does not led credence to the averments made in the FIR.

¶11

It is also urged that the applicant has no criminal history and has been in jail since 06.09.2023. There is no possibility of the applicant of fleeing away after being released on bail or tampering with the witnesses. In case, the applicant is enlarged on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶12

Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail, but could not dispute the aforesaid facts.

¶13

Considering the rival submissions as well as the facts and circumstances of the case and the material available on record also considering the nature of allegations and accusation against the applicant, the severity of the punishment if convicted and the period of incarceration as well as the fact that no apprehension has been expressed by the learned AGA that the applicant is at the risk of fleeing justice or that he would tamper with evidence or influence any witness, hence, at this stage, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this Court is of the view that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail.

¶14

Accordingly, the instant bail application is allowed.

¶15

Let the applicant- Akhilesh @ Kallu involved in the abovementioned case crime be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond with two reliable sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned. At the time of executing required sureties, the following conditions shall be imposed in the interest of justice:-

¶16

(i) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates 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.

¶17

(ii) 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 sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶18

(iii) 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.

¶19

(iv) 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. is issued and the 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 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶20

(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

¶21

313 Cr.P.C. If in the opinion of the trial court, absence of the applicant 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 proceed against him in accordance with law.

¶22

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

¶23

Order Date :- 8.5.2024 Harshita

¶24

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

Akhilesh @ Kallu v. State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Civils Ecrt. Lko. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Akhilesh @ Kallu v. State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Civils Ecrt. 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

Mohd. Junaid Vs the Court of Learned Civil Judge Senior Division Room No. 15 Sultanpur and 2 Others

Hanumant Chand Gond Vs Sub Divisional Magistrate Tehsil Mankapur Distt. Gonda and Another

Mahant Amar Muni vs the Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division), Court No. 20 Barabanki and 9 Others

Onkar Nath Vs D.D.C.

Faqire and Others Vs D.D.C. and Others

Amzad Shah Vs D.D.C.Sultanpur and Others