Allowed

Salman @ Munawwar v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin.Secy. Home and 3 Others

Allahabad HC18 Jun 2024BAIL/6351/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Single Judge allowed the bail application of Salman @ Munawwar accused under POCSO, SC/ST Act, and IPC. The court noted the victim alleged five persons but only four were dropped during investigation, making the applicant eligible for bail on personal bond and sureties with standard conditions.

What did the court decide?

Release on bail with personal bond and two reliable sureties subject to undertaking of conditions regarding conduct and court appearance.

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

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:43281

¶2

Court No. - 12

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 6351 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Salman @ Munawwar Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin.Secy. Home And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Jaikaran Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Rajeev Singh,J.

¶6

Written instructions duly signed by S.H.O., P.S.Maharajganj, District- Raebareli placed by Shri Ajay Kumar Srivastava, learned A.G.A. is taken on record.

¶7

It is informed by Learned A.G.A. that the notice has already been served on the informant of the case in question but no one is present on his behalf. Therefore, the matter is being proceeded for final disposal.

¶8

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

¶9

The present bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant in Case Crime No.53 of 2023 under Sections 363, 366, 376(3) I.P.C., Section 3/4 of POCSO Act and Section 3(2)5 of SC/ST Act, Police Station Maharajganj, District Raebareli, with the prayer to enlarge him on bail.

¶10

Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant is an innocent person and has been falsely implicated in the present case and he is in jail since 19.02.2024. He further submitted that the F.I.R. of case in question was lodged on the basis of concocted facts. In the F.I.R., three persons, namely, Bablu, Adharsh @ Chhotu and Salman @ Munawwar (applicant) were named. During the course of investigation, statement of victim was recorded under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. and in her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. she categorically made allegations against five persons, namely, Bablu, Imran, Adharsh @ Chhotu, Saddam and Salman @ Munawwar (applicant) but the Investigating Officer dropped the name of four persons and filed charge sheet against the applicant. He further submitted that as per Section 35 of POCSO Act, it is obligatory on the part of Investigating Officer to record the statement of minor victim within 30 days from the date of taking cognizance of the offence but till today, statement

¶11

of victim has not been recorded. He further submitted that applicant is having no criminal antecedent and there is no possibility of tampering of evidence. He further submitted that trial has not been concluded and in near future there is no possibility of conclusion of the same. In these circumstances, the applicant is entitled for bail. In case of being enlarged on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶12

Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer of the applicant for grant of bail and submitted that the statement of victim has already been recorded and cross-examination is going on. But he does not dispute this fact that in the statement of victim recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., she made allegations against five persons but names of four persons were dropped by the Investigating Officer.

¶13

Considering the rival submissions of learned counsel for parties, material available on record, contents of the F.I.R., statement of victim recorded under Section 164, other relevant documents as well as totality of fact and circumstances, as it evident that victim made allegations against five persons and names of four persons were dropped during the investigation and applicant is in jail since 19.02.2024, therefore, I am of the view that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail.

¶14

Let applicant - Salman @ Munawwar - 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:-

¶15

(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.

¶16

(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 officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶17

(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.

¶18

(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 sufficient cause, the Trial Court may

¶19

proceed against him under Section 229-A IPC.

¶20

(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 IPC.

¶21

(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 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 :- 18.6.2024 V. Sinha

¶24

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

Salman @ Munawwar v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin.Secy. Home and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Salman @ Munawwar v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin.Secy. Home and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Anand Kumar and 2 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko and Another

Sushila Devi vs Andra Wamshi, District Magistrate, Basti District Basti

Ghanshyam Maurya and Another vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Rajesh Singh @ Khanna vs State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home Civil Secrt. Lko.

Rakesh Kumar Awasthi vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Anoop Mishra vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Civil Secrt. Lko. and Another