Allowed

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

Allahabad HC17 Mar 2025BAIL/6612/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Pramod bail allowed, High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 6612 of 2025, Case Crime No. 20 of 2024, Section 376 I.P.C., 3/4(2) POCSO Act, Police Station Jalesar, District Etah, witnesses PW-1 and PW-2 turned hostile, Satender Kumar Antil 2022 INSC 690, Manish Sisodia 2024 INSC 595, Niranjan Singh AIR 1980 SC 785, Prabhakar Tewari 2020 (11) SCC 648, Justice Kris

What did the court decide?

Applicant Pramod released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned; sureties to be verified before the release order; s

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

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:50805

¶2

Court No. - 65

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 6612 of 2025

¶4

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

¶5

Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.

¶6

List has been revised.

¶7

Learned A.G.A. has informed that notice to the informant has been served on 19.2.2025.

¶8

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

¶9

Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No.20 of 2024, under Section 376 I.P.C. and 3/4(2) POCSO Act, Police Station- Jalesar, District- Etah, 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 informant and victim have been examined during trial as PW-1 & PW-2 and they have completely resiled from their earlier statements and have been cross-examined by the public prosecutor after declaring them hostile. There is no likelihood of conviction of the applicant in the present case.

¶11

Learned counsel for the applicant has further stated that the criminal history assigned to the applicant stands explained vide supplementary affidavit filed today in Court. The applicant is languishing in jail since 8.2.2024 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

Per contra, learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the bail application but could not dispute the fact that the witnesses have turned hostile.

¶13

The Supreme Court in Prabhakar Tewari Vs. State of U.P. and

¶14

another, 2020 (11) SCC 648 has observed that pendency of several criminal cases against an accused itself cannot be a basis for refusal of bail, if otherwise his case of bail is made out.

¶15

In light of the judgement of the Supreme Court passed in Niranjan Singh and another vs Prabhakar Rajaram Kharote and others AIR 1980 SC 785, this Court 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.

¶16

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 .

¶17

Let the applicant- Pramod , 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.

¶18

(i) The applicant shall not tamper with evidence.

¶19

(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.

¶20

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

¶21

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.

¶22

Order Date :- 8.4.2025/ Vikas

¶23

(Justice Krishan Pahal)

¶24

Digitally signed by :- VIKAS VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pramod 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

Akash Jaiswal vs State of U.P.

Arjun Rajbhar vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Nanhak Chand Yadav vs State of U.P.

Gablu @ Dheerendra Kumar vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Rajkumar vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Mohd. Firdos vs State of U.P. and 3 Others