Prahlad v. State Of U.P. And 3 Others
Case at a glance
Outcome
Bail granted
The bail application is allowed
Provisions considered
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 s. 164
- Indian Penal Code, 1860 ss. 363, 366(2), 504, 506
- Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012
Judgment
Operative part
Hon'ble Nalin Kumar Srivastava,J. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A for the State and perused the record. It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case; that the victim in her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. has not assigned the role of kidnapping or sexual assault to the applicant; that the applicant has no criminal history. It is lastly contended that the applicant is languishing in jail since 04.09.2022 and in case he is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate in trial. On the other hand, learned AGA opposed the prayer for bail. It appears from perusal of the record that no sexual offence has been committed by the present applicant and he is said to be the father of main accused Sunil. The victim in her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C has not assigned the role to the present applicant in the incident of kidnapping or any sexual offence. The applicant is languishing in jail since 04.09.2022. Grounds for bail are sufficient. Hence, keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, severity of punishment, submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, the dictum of Apex Court in the case of Dataram Singh vs. State of U.P. and another, (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 Prahlad involved in Case Crime No. 186 of 2022, under Sections 363, 366 (2), 504, 506 IPC and 17/18 POCSO Act, P.S. Ghatampur, District - Kanpur Nagar be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two heavy 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.
The applicant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.
The applicant will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness.
The applicant will appear before the trial court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted.
The applicant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which he is accused, or suspected, of the commission of which he is suspected.
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. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the prosecution shall be at liberty to move bail cancellation application before this Court. Submissions and observations made in this order are only for deciding the bail application. The trial Court while deciding the trial will not be influenced with the same. Order Date :- 8.12.2022//Fhd Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: The bail application is allowed
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 164; Indian Penal Code, 1860 — ss. 363, 366(2), 504, 506; Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Allahabad High Court, on 08 Dec 2022. The bench was NALIN KUMAR SRIVASTAVA.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.