Allowed

Sanjeet Singh v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC24 Feb 2025BAIL/6482/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Applicant sought bail under BNS, POCSO and S.C./S.T. Act provisions for an alleged offence involving a minor victim. Court noted delayed FIR, victim's statement, no criminal history, and relied on Supreme Court bail principles to grant bail with conditions.

What the court decided

AI extract

Sanjeet Singh vs State of U.P. and 3 Others — Caste Atrocities | Allahabad HC (2025)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:30672

¶2

Court No. - 65

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 6482 of 2025

¶4

Applicant :- Sanjeet Singh Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Jitendra Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.

¶6

List has been revised.

¶7

Heard Sri Jitendra Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Sunil Kumar, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record.

¶8

Learned A.G.A. has informed that the notice to the informant has been served on 18.02.2025.

¶9

Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No.219 of 2024, under Sections 137(2), 64(m), 87 B.N.S., 5(L)/6 POCSO Act and 3(2)v S.C./S.T. Act, Police Station Sikandarpur, District Ballia, during the pendency of trial.

¶10

Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the applicant is absolutely innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. The FIR is delayed by about eight days and there is no explanation of the said delay caused. The victim is a consenting party as is but evident from her statement recorded under Section 183 B.N.S.S. Her age has come out to be 16 years, 8 months as per school certificate. There is no medical corroboration of the incident.

¶11

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. There is no criminal history of the applicant. The applicant is languishing in jail since 23.10.2024 and he is ready to cooperate with trial. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶12

Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the bail application.

¶13

The Supreme Court in the case of Niranjan Singh and another vs. Prabhakar Rajaram Kharote and Others, AIR 1980 SC 785 has avoided detailed examination of the evidence and elaborate documentation of the merits of the case as no party should have the impression that his case has been prejudiced. A prima facie satisfaction of case is needed but it is not the same as an exhaustive exploration of the merits in the order itself.

¶14

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, the evidence on record, and taking into consideration the settled law of the Supreme Court passed in Satender Kumar Antil vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and Ors., 2022 INSC 690 and Manish Sisodia vs. Directorate of Enforcement, 2024 INSC 595 and 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.

¶15

Let the applicant- Sanjeet Singh , 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.

¶16

(i) The applicant shall not tamper with evidence.

¶17

(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 313 Cr.P.C./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.

¶18

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

¶19

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.

¶20

Order Date :- 4.3.2025 (Ravi Kant)

¶21

(Justice Krishan Pahal)

¶22

Digitally signed by :- RAVI KANT High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Sanjeet Singh v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Sanjeet Singh v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

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

Aasim vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Munna Yadav vs State of U.P.

Waris vs State of U.P.

Islam vs State of U.P. and Another

Sunil vs State of U.P.

Nemchand vs State of U.P. and 3 Others