Allowed

Tinku v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC19 Feb 2025BAIL/3215/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bail application by an accused in a case involving enticing away and raping a minor girl under BNS and POCSO provisions. The court invoked the principle that bail is a rule and jail an exception, noted no criminal antecedents, and allowed bail subject to conditions.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties, subject to conditions of not tampering with evidence and attending trial proceedings.

Tinku vs State of U.P. and 3 Others — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Allahabad HC (2025)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:37072

¶2

Court No. - 65

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 3215 of 2025

¶4

Applicant :- Tinku Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Shashi Prakash Pandey,Shubham Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.

¶6

List has been revised.

¶7

As informed by learned State Law Officer, notice to the informant has been served on 25.01.2025 but none is present on behalf of the informant.

¶8

Heard Sri Shashi Prakash Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant as well as Sri Amit Kumar, learned State Law Officer and also perused the material available on record.

¶9

Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 271 of 2024, under Sections 137(2), 65(2) of B.N.S. and Sections 5M/6 of POCSO Act, Police Station - Anoopshahr, District - Bulandshahr, during the pendency of trial.

¶10

PROSECUTION STORY:

¶11

The FIR was instituted against the applicant and two other co-accused persons of having enticed away the minor daughter of the informant aged about 12 years on 22.07.2024 at about 09:00 pm.

¶12

ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF APPLICANT:

¶13

The applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case due to ulterior motive. He has nothing to do with the said offence as alleged in the FIR.

¶14

The FIR is delayed by about one day and there is no explanation of the said delay caused.

¶15

The victim is the consenting party as is but evident from her statement recorded u/s 183 B.N.S.S whereby she has stated that she had gone with the applicant to the secluded place and the applicant had committed rape with her by threatening her and she had gone with the applicant to his sister's house also.

¶16

The victim by her physical appearance seems to be major although as per ossification test report age of the victim is 16-17 years old.

¶17

There is no medical corroboration of the incident, as such, applicant is entitled for bail.

¶18

Several other submissions have been made on behalf of the applicant to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against him. The circumstances which, as per counsel, led to the false implication of the applicant have also been touched upon at length.

¶19

The applicant is languishing in jail since 19.09.2024, having no criminal history to his credit, deserves to be released on bail. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and shall cooperate with trial.

¶20

ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF STATE BY STATE LAW OFFICER:

¶21

The bail application has been opposed but the submissions raised by the learned counsel for the applicant could not be disputed and also the fact that the applicant has no criminal history.

¶22

CONCLUSION:

¶23

The well-known principle of " Presumption of Innocence Unless Proven Guilty, " gives rise to the concept of bail as a rule and imprisonment as an exception.

¶24

A person's right to life and liberty, guaranteed by Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, cannot be taken away simply because the person is accused of committing an offence until the guilt is established beyond a reasonable doubt. Article 21 of the Indian Constitution states that no one's life or personal liberty may be taken away unless the procedure established by law is followed, and the procedure must be just and reasonable. The said principle has been reiterated by the Supreme Court in Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and Ors., 2022 INSC 690 .

¶25

Reiterating the aforesaid view, the Supreme Court in the case of Manish Sisodia Vs. Directorate of Enforcement, 2024 INSC 595 , has again emphasized that the very well-settled principle of law that bail is not to be withheld as a punishment is not to be forgotten. It is high time that the Courts should recognize the principle that " bail is a rule and jail is an exception ".

¶26

Learned State Law Officer could not bring forth any exceptional circumstances which would warrant denial of bail to the applicant.

¶27

It is settled principle of law that the object of bail is to secure the attendance of the accused at the trial. No material particulars or circumstances suggestive of the applicant fleeing from justice or thwarting the course of justice or creating other troubles in the shape of repeating offences or intimidating witnesses and the like have been shown by learned State Law Officer.

¶28

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, the evidence on record, pending trial and considering the complicity of accused, severity of punishment, at this stage, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed .

¶29

Let the applicant- Tinku , who is involved in aforementioned case 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 subject to following conditions. Further, before issuing the release order, the sureties be verified.

¶30

(i) The applicant shall not tamper with evidence.

¶31

(ii) 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 351 B.N.S.S. 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.

¶32

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

¶33

It is made clear that observations made in granting bail to the applicant shall not in any way affect the learned trial Judge in forming his independent opinion based on the testimony of the witnesses.

¶34

Order Date :- 17.3.2025 Priya

¶35

(Justice Krishan Pahal)

¶36

Digitally signed by :- PRIYA KUSHWAHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Tinku v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tinku v. State of U.P. 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

Shiva Sagar vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Tushar Thakur Alias Kartik vs State of U.P.

Vidit vs State of U.P.

Chaman Khan vs State of U.P.

Vishal Nishad vs State of U.P.

Ravindra vs State of Up through Principal Secretary ( Home)