Allowed

Intezar v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC10 Dec 2024BAIL/9985/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In CPL regarding bail in a POCSO and IPC case, the Allahabad High Court granted bail to the applicant despite the severity of the charge. The court noted material contradictions in the victim's statement, absence of prior criminal record, and pledged conditions ensuring witness protection and court attendance, relying on Article 21.

What did the court decide?

Bail granted on personal bond and two sureties with conditions ensuring non-tampering of evidence and attendance on key dates.

Intezar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy… — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:82790

¶2

Court No. - 15

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 9985 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Intezar Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Prem Chandra Chauhan,Desh Deepak Singh,Sandeep Kumar Pal,Sudhir Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Shree Prakash Singh,J.

¶6

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

¶7

The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant with a prayer to release the applicant on bail during the trial in Case Crime No. 275 of 2024, under Sections 354 (Ka), 323 I.P.C. and 9/10 POCSO Act, P.S. Para, District Lucknow.

¶8

It is contended by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in the present case. He submits that there is material contradiction in the statement of the victim as when the question was put by the ADGC, she replied that she had stated at the instance of her mother. He also submits that the victim has also denied that there was no eye witness of the incident. He added that since there was a dispute in between the parties and scuffle took place when some persons received injures and due to anonymity, the F.I.R. has been lodged and false story of molesting the victim is alleged in the F.I.R. though no such incident has ever taken place. He further added that charge sheet has been filed, as such, there is no possibility of his fleeing away or tampering the with the evidence. He further submits that there is no previous criminal history of the applicant, which has been explained in para 15 of the bail application and the applicant is languishing in jail since 25.5.2024 and in case, the applicant is granted bail, he will not misuse the liberty and would co-operate in the trial proceedings.

¶9

Per contra, learned A.G.A. vehemently opposed the prayer of bail and submitted that the applicant is involved in committing the aforesaid offence, as such, he is not entitled to be released on bail.

¶10

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and after

¶11

perusal of record, it transpires that there is material contradiction in the statement of the victim as when the question was put by the ADGC, she replied that she had stated at the instance of her mother; charge sheet has been filed, as such, there is no possibility of his fleeing away or tampering with the evidence; there is no previous criminal history of the applicant, which has been explained in para 15 of the bail application; the applicant is languishing in jail since 25.5.2024; and he has undertaken that he will not misuse the liberty of bail if granted and would co-operate in the trial proceedings.

¶12

Considering the submissions of learned counsel of both sides, nature of accusation and severity of punishment in case of conviction, nature of supporting evidence, prima facie satisfaction of the Court in support of the charge, reformative theory of punishment and considering larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India and, without expressing any view on the merits of the case, I find it to be a case of bail.

¶13

Let the applicant Intezar involved in the aforementioned crime 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:-

¶14

(1) The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence by intimidating/ pressurizing the witnesses, or otherwise during the investigation or trial;

¶15

(2) 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. He 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;

¶16

(3) 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.; and

¶17

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

¶18

The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be

¶19

verified by the court concerned and in case of breach of any of the above conditions, the court below shall be at liberty to cancel the bail and send the applicant to prison.

¶20

It is clarified that the observations made in this order are strictly confined to the disposal of this bail application and must not be construed to have any reflection on the merits of the case.

¶21

Order Date :- 10.12.2024 Ram Murti

¶22

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

Intezar v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Intezar v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Rajendra Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Shadan Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Vijay Tiwari @ Laddu Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Civil Sectt. Lko

Radhey Shyam vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Civil Sectt. Lko and 4 Others

Sachin Jaisawal vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Civil Sectt. Lko

Arvind Maurya and 30 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another