Allowed

Faisal Ahmad v. State of U.P. Thru Secy. Home Deptt. Lko and Ors.

Allahabad HC1 Apr 2024BAIL/3598/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed bail to Faisal Ahmad in a criminal case involving IPC and P.O.C.S.O. sections. The court noted discrepancies in the victim's statement, lack of corroboration for certain allegations, and the applicant's lack of flight risk, granting bail subject to bonds and conditions.

What did the court decide?

The applicant Faisal Ahmad released on bail on furnishing a personal bond with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned.

Faisal Ahmad vs State of U.P. Thru Secy… — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:26733

¶2

Court No. - 14

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 3598 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Faisal Ahmad Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru Secy. Home Deptt. Lko And Ors. Counsel for Applicant :- Devendra Pratap,Saad Husain,Shashank Shekhar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Jaspreet Singh,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶7

The applicant Faisal Ahmad has sought bail in Case Crime No.0125 of 2023, under Sections 452, 354, 506 IPC and under Section 7/8 P.O.C.S.O. Act relating to police station Jankipuram, District Lucknow.

¶8

It has been contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that the victim was in a romantic affair with the applicant and this was not acceptable to the family of the victim hence peeved with the said situation the FIR was lodged against the applicant. It is further urged that another FIR was lodged by the mother of the victim bearing Case Crime no.179 of 2023 under Sections 363, 366, 376, 342, 506 IPC and under Section 3/4 POCSO Act.

¶9

It was further stated that in the aforesaid case crime no.179 of 2023 the complainant and the victim did not support the case of the prosecution apart from the fact that the applicant has already been enlarged on bail in the said case by means of order dated 22.03.2024 passed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.3449 of 2024.

¶10

It is further urged that since the applicant has falsely been implicated and he does not have any criminal history and he has been in jail since 27.07.2023. It is also urged that the victim left with the applicant on her own and the applicant did not entice her.

¶11

Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail, but could not dispute the aforesaid facts. It has been urged that the notice on

¶12

the complainant has also been served.

¶13

Having considered the material on record including the statement of the victim recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and 164 Cr.P.C. and the discrepancies therein including the fact that the victim herself admitted the romantic affair with the applicant. Moreover the allegation regarding the threat of making the pictures of the victim with the applicant and posting it on social media also could not be verified nor any such pictures could be identified.

¶14

The applicant is a young boy having a career ahead of him and the fact that the complainant refused the medical examination of the victim. Moreover in 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.

¶15

Let the applicant Faisal Ahmad involved in the aforesaid case crime number be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned.

¶16

At the time of executing required sureties the following conditions shall be imposed in the interest of justice.

¶17

(i) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that they shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witness 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.

¶18

(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.

¶19

(iii) In case, the applicant misuse 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 fail to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial

¶20

court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶21

(iv) 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 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 :- 1.4.2024 ank

¶24

Digitally signed by :- ALI NEWAZ KHAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Faisal Ahmad v. State of U.P. Thru Secy. Home Deptt. Lko and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Faisal Ahmad v. State of U.P. Thru Secy. Home Deptt. Lko and Ors.

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

Akansha Dixit Vs the Prin. Judge Family Court Lko. and Another

Mohammad Hashim Husain Vs Consolidation Officer, Beekapur, Ayodhya and Others

Sarla Devi and Another Vs Civil Judge (S.D.) Sitapur and 18 Others

Pawan Kumar @ Pappu Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Secy. Lko.

Sameer Kumar @ Surendra Mohan Srivastava Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Sectt. Lko

Faisal Ahmad Vs State of U.P. Thru Secy. Home Deptt. Lko and Ors.