Bail application rejected for accused charged under IPC and POCSO. Court held lack of eye-witnesses and medical evidence did not dispel suspicion given victim's age and testifying medical reports contrary to defense claims.
None granted; bail application rejected.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 53
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 2404 of 2018 Applicant :- Samosa @ Ram Naresh Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Mr Yatindra Singh,Mr Pravendra Kumar Chauhan
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Umesh Chandra Srivastava,J.
Heard Shri Pravendra Kumar Chauhan, learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case due to village parti bandi. He further submits that the F.I.R. of the incident has been lodged with delay of 5 days without any plausible explanation. He further submits that prosecution story does not find support from the medical evidence as no mark of injury has been found on the person of the victim in her medical examination. He further submits that there is no eye witness of the incident. He further submits that applicant who is languishing in jail since 09.03.2017 has no other criminal history and there is also no possibility of his either fleeing away from the judicial process or tampering with the witnesses. Applicant also undertakes that he will not misuse the liberty, if granted.
Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the prayer and submitted that victim is three years old girl and medical evidence supports the prosecution as it is reported therein that after the incident victim used to cry during discharge of urine.
Having heard the submission of learned counsel of both sides, considering the statements of eye witnesses, namely, Rohit and Gyan Singh and also the medical evidence, I do not find it to be a case of bail.
The bail application of applicant Samosa @ Ram Naresh in Case Crime No.256 of 2017, under Sections 376 I.P.C. and section 4 Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, P.S. Ghatampur, District - Kanpur Nagar is accordingly rejected.
Order Date :- 23.1.2018 Bhanu
2 issues framed by the court
Whether bail should be granted to the applicant accused of offences under the IPC and POCSO Act.
Whether the medical evidence, lack of witnesses, and delay in FIR affect the prima facie case against the applicant.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Samosa @ Ram Naresh
Umesh Chandra Srivastava
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
