Allowed

Sachin Sharma v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC7 Sept 2018BAIL/32068/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court released the applicant on bail in a criminal case involving child sexual assault, IPC and POCSO charges. Bail was granted primarily because the applicant was not named in the FIR initially, the victim resiled from her statement, and she refused a medical examination. No opinion was expressed on the merits of the charges.

What did the court decide?

Release of applicant on bail by furnishing a personal bond and two sureties in like amount under specific conditions.

Sachin Sharma Vs State of U.P. — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 52

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 32068 of 2018

¶3

Applicant :- Sachin Sharma Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Pushpendra Singh,Wahid Jamal Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Rajul Bhargava,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. and perused the record.

¶6

The present bail application has been filed by the applicant in Case Crime No. 27 of 2018, u/s 363, 366, 376 IPC and 4 POCSO Act, P.S. Agauta, District Bulandshahar with the prayer for enlarging him on bail.

¶7

It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that as per the medical report, the prosecutrix is aged about 17-18 years. The applicant was not named in the F.I.R., the name of the applicant and co-accused was introduced in the statement of the victim u/s 164 Cr.P.C. It is further submitted that the statement of the prosecutrix was recorded during trial as PW-1 and in her examination in chief itself she has resiled from the prosecution version and has also stated that the statement u/s 164 Cr.P.C. was recorded under the pressure of family members and police. Lastly it is submitted that the victim refused for external or internal medical examination, therefore, at this stage there is nothing on record to establish that gang rape was committed on her.

¶8

Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail. However he could not point out anything material to the contrary.

¶9

In view of the facts and circumstances of the case and submissions made by learned counsel for the applicant and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case the applicant is entitled to be released on bail.

¶10

Let the applicant Sachin Sharma involved in the aforesaid case crime number be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:-

¶11

(i) The applicant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.

¶12

(ii) The applicant will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness.

¶13

(iii)The applicant will appear before the trial court on the date fixed.

¶14

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the court below shall be at liberty to cancel the bail.

¶15

Order Date :- 7.9.2018

¶16

Dhirendra/

Sachin Sharma v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sachin Sharma 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

Balwant Yadav Vs State of U.P.

Satish Singh Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Vijay Kumar Bharti Vs State of U.P.

Dolly Vs State of U.P.

narendra nishad Vs State of U.P.

Vinay Kumar Alias Resu Katiyar Vs State of U.P.