SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Chandrabhan @ Chandramohan vs State Of U.P. on 21 October, 2019

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

?Court No. – 78

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. – 43620 of 2019

Applicant :- Chandrabhan @ Chandramohan

Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.

Counsel for Applicant :- Mithilesh Kumar Shukla,Avanish Kumar Shukla

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

Hon’ble Siddharth,J.

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State.

Submission is that from the allegation made in the first information report offence under Section 354 I.P.C. has been falsely alleged against the applicant. Although the victim is minor but she has not named the applicant. She has also not stated that she recognised the applicant by face. The applicant is the neighbour and has been falsely implicated in this case on account of dispute with the informant. He is in jail since 06.08.2019 and has no criminal history to his credit.

On the other hand learned AGA has opposed the prayer for bail.

Keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence on record regarding complicity of the accused, submissions of the learned counsel for the parties noted herein above, larger mandate of the SectionArticle 21 of the Constitution of India and the dictum of Apex Court in the case of Dataram Singh Vs. State of U.P. and another reported in (2018)3 SCC 22 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.

Let the applicant Chandrabhan @ Chadramohan involved in Case Crime No.776 of 2019, under Sections 354 IPC and under Section 7/8 POCSO Act, Police Station Tajganj, District- Agra 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.

1. The applicant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.

2. The applicant will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness.

3. The applicant will appear before the trial court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted.

4. The applicant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which they are accused, or suspected of the commission of which they are suspected.

5. 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 them from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the complainant is free to move an application for cancellation of bail before this court.

Order Date :- 21.10.2019

SS

 

 

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Copyright © 2020 SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation
×

Free Legal Help, Just WhatsApp Away

MyNation HELP line

We are Not Lawyers, but No Lawyer will give you Advice like We do

Please read Group Rules – CLICK HERE, If You agree then Please Register CLICK HERE and after registration  JOIN WELCOME GROUP HERE

We handle Women Centric biased laws like False Sectioin 498A IPC, Domestic Violence(DV ACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA 24, 125 CrPc, 307, 312, 313, 323, 354, 376, 377, 406, 420, 497, 506, 509; TEP, RTI and many more…

MyNation FoundationMyNation FoundationMyNation Foundation