Allowed

Harikesh @ Matole v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, U.P. Lucknow and 3 Others

Allahabad HC5 Jan 2024BAIL/74/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Second bail application under Sections 376(3), 450, 506 IPC and Sections 5/6 POCSO. Victim and fact witnesses did not support prosecution; applicant in jail since June 2022. Court granted bail on personal bond with two sureties and standard conditions.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail on personal bond and two sureties, with conditions including no tampering with evidence and trial court attendance.

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

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:11284

¶2

Court No. - 14

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 74 of 2024

¶4

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

¶5

Hon'ble Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.

¶6

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

¶7

Notices to the complainant have been served, however, no one has appeared on behalf of the applicant.

¶8

This is second bail application. The first bail application of the applicant was rejected vide order dated 23.03.2023 passed in criminal misc. bail application No. 10228 of 2022.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicant has drawn attention of the Court towards the statement of the victim where she has not supported the prosecution case at all. The fact witnesses have been examined wherein they have not supported the prosecution case.

¶10

It has been further submitted that co-accused Bhupendra Chandra Pandey who was assigned the similar role has been enlarged on bail by the coordinate bench of this Court vide order dated 07.12.2023 passed in bail application No. 12219/2022.

¶11

It is further submitted that the applicant is languishing in jail since 07.06.2022. There is no possibility of the applicant of fleeing away after being released from jail or tampering with the witnesses. In case the applicant is enlarged on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶12

Learned AGA has opposed the bail application, however, does not dispute the fact that the fact witnesses have been examined as well as the victim has not supported the prosecution case in her statement.

¶13

On due consideration to the statements of the victim as well as considering the fact that the applicant is languishing in jail since 07.6.2022; since the fact witnesses have been examined before

¶14

the trial court, there is no chance of tampering evidence and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I find it to be a fit case for enlarging the applicant on bail.

¶15

Accordingly, the bail application is allowed.

¶16

Let the applicant, Harikesh @ Matole, involved in Case Crime/FIR No. 116/2022, Sections 376(3)/450/506 IPC and Section 5/6 of POCSO Act, Police Station - Deeh, District - Raebareli, be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions which are being imposed in the interest of justice:-

¶17

(i) The applicant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.

¶18

(ii) The applicant will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness.

¶19

(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.

¶20

(iv) 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.

¶21

(v) 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.

¶22

(vi) 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.

¶23

Order Date :- 6.2.2024 R.C.

¶24

Digitally signed by :- RAM CHANDER YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Harikesh @ Matole v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, U.P. Lucknow and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Harikesh @ Matole v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, U.P. Lucknow 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

Sonu Kumar Vs State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home

Kuldeep Yadav Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko.

Ishityaqk @ Manne Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko.

Arun Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin.Secy. Deptt. of Home and 3 Others

Mohd. Sohel Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Lko.

Ramveer Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Secrett. U.P. Lko.