Dismissed

atul v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC12 Dec 2018BAIL/3813/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a bail application regarding offences under IPC 363, 366, 368, 376 and POCSO where the prosecutrix was testifying as a child, the Single Judge rejected the bail plea without forming an opinion on merits, reasoning that the case was not fit for bail due to the severity and the victim's age.

What did the court decide?

Bail application rejected; trial directed to conclude within six months; coercive measures directed for witness attendance.

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

¶1

Court No. - 53

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 3813 of 2018

¶3

Applicant :- Atul Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Gajendra Singh,Pradeep Kumar Pal Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,S.D.Dwivedi,Suresh Dhar Dwivedi

¶4

Hon'ble J.J. Munir,J.

¶5

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

¶6

This is an application for bail on behalf of Atul in connection with Case Crime No. 642 of 2017 under Sections 363, 366, 368, 376 IPC and Section 3/4 of POCSO Act, P.S. Paraura, District Shahjahanpur.

¶7

Heard Sri Prabhat Pandey, Advocate holding brief of Sri Pradeep Kumar Pal, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Suresh Dhar Dwivedi, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the complainant and Sri Sudhir Kumar Pathak, learned AGA appearing on behalf of the State.

¶8

The submission of learned counsel for the applicant is that the prosecutrix in her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. dated 27.10.2017 has spoken exculpatory and in categorical terms where she says that she had gone along with Atul of her free will and married him; that she is living with Atul as his wife; and, that she told her elders that she would marry Atul which they declined, and, therefore, she married him herself. It is also said that her mother had beaten her and asked her to go away, and, therefore, she went away. The submission of learned counsel for the applicant is that looking to the said statement no case of rape is made out against the applicant.

¶9

Sri Suresh Dhar Dwivedi, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the complainant and the learned AGA have opposed the prayer for bail with the submission, that going by the medico legal estimation of prosecutrix's age, based on ossification test, she has been opined to be aged about 14 years. She is thus undoubtedly a child, and, sex with a child by her consent is still statutory rape, besides violation of provisions of the POCSO Act. The fact that the prosecutrix has said in her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C., that she has married the applicant and living with him as man and wife clearly establish a case of statutory rape, in the submission of learned counsel for the complainant and the learned AGA.

¶10

Considering the overall facts and circumstances, the nature of allegations, the gravity of offence, the severity of punishment, the evidence appearing in the case, in particular, the age of the prosecutrix, but without expressing any opinion on merits, this Court does not find it to be a fit case for bail at this stage.

¶11

Accordingly, the bail application stands rejected at this stage.

¶12

The trial court is directed to expedite proceedings and conclude the trial as expeditiously as possible within six months next from the receipt of a certified copy of this order in accordance with Section 309 Cr.P.C. and in view of principle laid down in the recent judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Vinod Kumar vs. State of Punjab reported in 2015 (3) SCC 220 , if there is no legal impediment.

¶13

It is made clear that in case the witnesses are not appearing, the concerned court is directed to initiate strict coercive measure for ensuring their presence. Once, the witnesses appear, they will not be discharged until their evidence is recorded.

¶14

Let a copy of the order be certified to the court concerned for necessary compliance.

¶15

Order Date :- 12.12.2018

¶16

Deepak

atul v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

atul 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ranjeet Vs State of U.P.

Rajeshwar Prasad Bhardwaj Vs State of U.P. and Others

Prahlad Yadav Vs State of U.P.

Mohd. Ali @ Chota @ Lallva Vs State of U.P.

bhorik Vs State of U.P.

Rizwan Vs State of U.P.