The Allahabad High Court has granted bail to a practising advocate from Hamirpur district, who had been convicted of ‘stalking’ a woman judge and making inappropriate comments about her.
A Single Bench of Justice Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra passed this order while hearing a Criminal Revision filed by Mohd Haroon.
The Criminal Revision has been preferred by the revisionist against the order dated 18.1.2024 passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge FTC First, district Hamirpur in Criminal Appeal as well as the order dated 11.7.2023 passed by the CJM, Hamirpur in Case under Sections 354, 354A(IV), 354-D and 509 IPC.
By the impugned judgement trial court convicted the revisionist under sections 354, 354Ka(1)(IV), 354Gha and 509 IPC and awarded four years simple imprisonment and Rs 2000/- fine under section 354 IPC, one year simple imprisonment and Rs 1000/- fine under section 354Ka(1)(IV) IPC, one year simple imprisonment and Rs 1000/- fine under section 354 Gha and one year simple imprisonment and Rs 500 fine under section 509 IPC in default of payment of fine, the accused has to undergo 15 days further imprisonment.
Counsel for the revisionist submitted that the informant/ complainant is a judicial officer and was posted in District Court Hamirpur at the time of incident and accused revisionist is a practicing Advocate in the said court.
An FIR was lodged by the complainant on 19.8.2022 under sections 354-C and 354-D IPC against the revisionist with the allegation that the revisionist was hindering privacy of the informant, passing sexual comments and staring at her every now and then when she was walking out of her chamber.
Counsel for the revisionist further submitted that the prosecution version is exaggerated and there is no allegation against the revisionist for transmitting any undesirable audio SMS or whatsapp message to the informant or trying to chat her in private manner. The main allegation against the revisionist is that he was stalking the informant. The revisionist apologized to her on several occasions but it was misconstrued by the informant.
It is also submitted that revisionist is a practicing lawyer and has undergone imprisonment of one year, 11 months as on 6.11.2024 and 2 years 2 months and 15 days imprisonment with remission as on date. Thus, the revisionist has undergone half of the maximum sentence awarded in the impugned judgement. The accused revisionist undertakes to abide by the conditions of bail. The early hearing of the appeal is not likely to take place due to the heavy backlog.
Per contra, AGA for the State opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that allegation against the revisionist is of misbehavior and is stalking a judicial officer, who was posted in that district, where he was practicing but he could not dispute the fact that revisionist has undergone half of the maximum sentence awarded in the impugned order.
Considering the rival submissions made by the parties and nature of offence and the quantum of punishment awarded and the fact that revisionist is in jail since 11.7.2023 and the revision is not likely to be decided early, due to pendency of backlog cases and without further commenting on the merits of the case the Court deems it fit to enlarge the accused-revisionist on bail during the pendency of the revision, the Court observed.
The Court ordered that,
Let appellant, Mohd Haroon, convicted and sentenced in the above case be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs 50,000/- (Fifty Thousand) and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned, subject to following conditions:-
1. The revisionist shall not tamper with the first informant in any manner either physical or electronic means during investigation or trial.
2. The revisionist shall cooperate in the trial sincerely without seeking any adjournment.
3. The revisionist shall not indulge in any criminal activity or commission of any crime after being released on bail.
4. Half of the fine imposed shall be deposited within one month after release and remaining fine shall remain, and in case of failure in depositing the amount of fine within the stipulated period, the trial court will take coercive action against the revisionist.
In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.
The post appeared first on .
A Single Bench of Justice Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra passed this order while hearing a Criminal Revision filed by Mohd Haroon.
The Criminal Revision has been preferred by the revisionist against the order dated 18.1.2024 passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge FTC First, district Hamirpur in Criminal Appeal as well as the order dated 11.7.2023 passed by the CJM, Hamirpur in Case under Sections 354, 354A(IV), 354-D and 509 IPC.
By the impugned judgement trial court convicted the revisionist under sections 354, 354Ka(1)(IV), 354Gha and 509 IPC and awarded four years simple imprisonment and Rs 2000/- fine under section 354 IPC, one year simple imprisonment and Rs 1000/- fine under section 354Ka(1)(IV) IPC, one year simple imprisonment and Rs 1000/- fine under section 354 Gha and one year simple imprisonment and Rs 500 fine under section 509 IPC in default of payment of fine, the accused has to undergo 15 days further imprisonment.
Counsel for the revisionist submitted that the informant/ complainant is a judicial officer and was posted in District Court Hamirpur at the time of incident and accused revisionist is a practicing Advocate in the said court.
An FIR was lodged by the complainant on 19.8.2022 under sections 354-C and 354-D IPC against the revisionist with the allegation that the revisionist was hindering privacy of the informant, passing sexual comments and staring at her every now and then when she was walking out of her chamber.
Counsel for the revisionist further submitted that the prosecution version is exaggerated and there is no allegation against the revisionist for transmitting any undesirable audio SMS or whatsapp message to the informant or trying to chat her in private manner. The main allegation against the revisionist is that he was stalking the informant. The revisionist apologized to her on several occasions but it was misconstrued by the informant.
It is also submitted that revisionist is a practicing lawyer and has undergone imprisonment of one year, 11 months as on 6.11.2024 and 2 years 2 months and 15 days imprisonment with remission as on date. Thus, the revisionist has undergone half of the maximum sentence awarded in the impugned judgement. The accused revisionist undertakes to abide by the conditions of bail. The early hearing of the appeal is not likely to take place due to the heavy backlog.
Per contra, AGA for the State opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that allegation against the revisionist is of misbehavior and is stalking a judicial officer, who was posted in that district, where he was practicing but he could not dispute the fact that revisionist has undergone half of the maximum sentence awarded in the impugned order.
Considering the rival submissions made by the parties and nature of offence and the quantum of punishment awarded and the fact that revisionist is in jail since 11.7.2023 and the revision is not likely to be decided early, due to pendency of backlog cases and without further commenting on the merits of the case the Court deems it fit to enlarge the accused-revisionist on bail during the pendency of the revision, the Court observed.
The Court ordered that,
Let appellant, Mohd Haroon, convicted and sentenced in the above case be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs 50,000/- (Fifty Thousand) and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned, subject to following conditions:-
1. The revisionist shall not tamper with the first informant in any manner either physical or electronic means during investigation or trial.
2. The revisionist shall cooperate in the trial sincerely without seeking any adjournment.
3. The revisionist shall not indulge in any criminal activity or commission of any crime after being released on bail.
4. Half of the fine imposed shall be deposited within one month after release and remaining fine shall remain, and in case of failure in depositing the amount of fine within the stipulated period, the trial court will take coercive action against the revisionist.
In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.
The post appeared first on .