SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Nizamuddin @ Guddu vs State Of U.P. on 5 November, 2019


?Court No. – 27

Case :- BAIL No. – 652 of 2019

Applicant :- Nizamuddin @ Guddu

Opposite Party :- State of U.P.

Counsel for Applicant :- Anil Kumar Sharma,Brijendra Kumar Tiwari

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

Hon’ble Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.

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

Learned counsel for applicant submitted that perusal of First Information Report depicts that the prosecution story is doubtful. The applicant is not named in the First Information Report. It is further contended that allegedly the incident has occurred in highly densely populated area but no one had witness the incident. It is also contended that even medical examination of victim was conducted within 24 hours on 29.08.2019, but no sign of carnal intercourse or external or internal mark of injury has been found on the person of the victim. It is also contended that the applicant has no other criminal history.The applicant is languishing in jail since 28.08.2018.

Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the aforesaid facts as argued by the learned counsel for the applicant.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, and also considering the nature of allegations, arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I find it to be a fit case for enlarging the applicant on bail.

Let applicant Nizamuddin @ Guddu involved in Case Crime No.901 of 2018, under Sections 377 IPC and POCSO Act, Police Station-Gazipur, District- Lucknow 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 which are being imposed in the interest of justice:-

(I). The applicant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.

(ii). The applicant will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness.

(iii). 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 him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

(iv) 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. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law.

(v) The applicant 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.

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

Order Date :- 5.11.2019




Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

Copyright © 2022 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