Allowed

Sunil v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC6 Dec 2018BAIL/14924/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

, the court allowed the bail application. The court noted a medico-legal report suggesting the prosecutrix was a major (21 years old), which questioned the applicability of the POCSO Act, but ultimately granted bail as a fit case after considering the gravity of the offence and the nature of allegations. Bail conditions included executing a personal bond, furnishing two sureties, and refraining fr

What did the court decide?

Released on bail by executing a personal bond and furnishing two sureties with specific conditions attached.

Sunil Vs State of U.P. — Narcotics (NDPS) | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 53

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 14924 of 2018

¶3

Applicant :- Sunil Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Ramanuj Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble J.J. Munir,J.

¶5

Counter affidavit filed today on behalf of the State is taken on record.

¶6

This is a bail application on behalf of the applicant Sunil in connection with Case Crime No. 121 of 2015 under Section 363, 366, 376 IPC and Section 6 Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, P.S. Kharela, District Mahoba.

¶7

Heard Sri Ramanuj Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Indrajeet Singh Yadav, learned AGA along with Sri Ashutosh Srivastava, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State.

¶8

The submission of learned counsel for the applicant is that going by the medico legal estimation of the prosecutrix's age made by the Chief Medical Officer, Mahoba in his report dated 15.02.2018 based on an ossification test and other scientific tests the prosecutrix is about 21 years of age. The submission of learned counsel for the applicant is that looking to the aforesaid medico legal estimation of age, the provisions of POCSO Act are not even remotely attracted. He submits that it is beyond comprehension as to how the Police have chargesheeted the applicant in a case under the POCSO Act. Learned counsel for the applicant has taken the Court through the statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. which according to the learned counsel for the applicant, shows that the prosecution is, in fact, a persecution by an unkind father who caused the prosecutrix to leave home on account of his tyranny at a young age, search work for herself and arrange matters about her life; she finally found for herself a man of matured age, and, married the applicant of her free will. The father upon learning of the said marriage of his daughter lodged the present FIR, and, now that has landed the prosecutrix's husband in jail.

¶9

Learned AGA has opposed the prayer for bail.

¶10

Considering the overall facts and circumstances, the nature of allegations, the gravity of offence, the severity of the punishment, the evidence appearing against the accused, in

¶11

particular, the fact that the prosecutrix is a major aged about 21 years, and, the fact that the statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. is wholesomely exculpatory, but without expressing any opinion on merits, this Court finds it to be a fit case for bail.

¶12

Accordingly, the bail application stands allowed.

¶13

Let the applicant Sunil involved in Case Crime No. 121 of 2015 under Section 363, 366, 376 IPC and Section 6 Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, P.S. Kharela, District Mahoba be released on bail on executing a personal bond and furnishing two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:

¶14

i) The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence.

¶15

ii) The applicant shall not threaten or harass the prosecution witnesses.

¶16

iii) The applicant shall appear on the date fixed by the trial court.

¶17

iv) The applicant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which the applicant is accused, or suspected of the commission.

¶18

v) 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 such person from disclosing facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶19

In case of default of any of the conditions enumerated above, the complainant would be free to move an application for cancellation of bail before this Court.

¶20

Order Date :- 6.12.2018

¶21

Deepak

Sunil v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sunil v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rajesh Vs State of U.P.

Mahesh Giri Vs State of U.P.

Roop Kishor Vs State of U.P.

Tarun Sharma Vs State of U.P.

Sunil Kumar Vs State of U.P.

Smt. Pramila Vs State of U.P.