Mustaq v. State of U.P.
Case brief
What is this about?
Court rejected bail application of applicant Mustaq, accused under IPC 363, 366, 376 and POCSO Act, due to prosecutrix's age being above 14 and below 16 years as per radiological report.
What did the court decide?
Bail application rejected; applicant denied enlargement on bail.
What the court decided
Court No. - 54
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 12769 of 2018
Applicant :- Mustaq Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Dur Vijay Singh,Maohammd Nadeem Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Rahul Chaturvedi,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA and perused the record.
By means of this application, the applicant who is involved in case crime no. 746 of 2017, under Sections 363, 366, 376 IPC and section 3/4 POCSO Act 2012, P.S. Gursahaiganj, District- kannauj is seeking enlargement on bail during the trial.
Keeping in view that as per the radiological report, the age of the prosecutrix is above 14 years and below 16 years, I am not inclined to grant indulgence to the applicant. Thus, the bail application stands rejected.
Order Date :- 10.4.2018 Nisha
Issues for consideration
3 issues framed by the court
Whether bail should be granted to an applicant accused under Sections 363, 366, 376 IPC and POCSO Act, considering the prosecutrix's age is between 14 and 16 years.
Whether the radiological report indicating the prosecutrix's age justifies rejection of bail.
Whether the court should grant bail in a case involving POCSO charges during trial.
Parties & counsel
- applicant
Mustaq
Coram
Rahul Chaturvedi
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
- Court
- Allahabad HC
- Decided on
- · April
- Registered
- Case no.
- BAIL/12769/2018
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court