Allowed

Mewa Lal Rajbhar v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC12 Nov 2018BAIL/39217/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court allowed a bail application filed by Mewa Lal Rajbhar accused under POCSO and IPC. The Court treated the case as a fit case for bail, noting the prosecutrix appeared a major based on a medical report, and without expressing an opinion on merits.

What did the court decide?

The applicant was ordered to be released on bail on executing a personal bond and furnishing two sureties, subject to specific conditions.

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

¶1

Court No. - 53 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 39217 of 2018

¶2

Applicant :- Mewa Lal Rajbhar Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Ram Shish Ram,Pradeep Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶3

Hon'ble J.J. Munir,J.

¶4

This is a bail application on behalf of Mewa Lal Rajbhar in connection with Case Crime No.101 of 2018, under Sections 363, 366, 376D I.P.C. and 3/4 of POCSO Act, P.S. Birno, District Ghazipur.

¶5

Heard Sri R.S.Ram, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri D.P.S.Chauhan, learned AGA along with Sri Ashutosh Diljan, learned counsel on behalf of the State.

¶6

In compliance of the order of this Court dated 10.10.2018, the prosecutrix was produced before the Medical Board to ascertain her age on 18.10.2018. The report of the Medical Board comprising five doctors including the Chief Medical Officer, Ghazipur acting as its Chairman has been placed before the Court. A perusal of the medico legal report dated 18.10.2018 determining the age of the prosecutrix shows that she has been opined to be aged about 17 years. It is submitted that giving the usual allowance of two years to the accused, even a year, the prosexutrix would reckon to be a major, going by the aforesaid medico legal estimation of age. In the submission of learned counsel for the applicant, the provisions of POCSO Act would not be attracted.

¶7

The submission of learned counsel for the applicant is that though the prosecutrix has, in her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C., spoken inculpatory against the applicant showing the applicant as an active participant with the role of the co-accused of ravishing her, he submits that the first information report, which was lodged by the father of the prosecutrix after she had returned home and had spoken to her parents, does not mention a word about rape. Her statement to the police under Section 161 Cr.P.C. does speak about the prosecutrix being taken away but the allegation of rape is conspicuous by its absence. Learned counsel for the applicant has placed much emphasis on the fact that the first information report that has been lodged after the prosexutrix returned home as well as her statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. shows, that the later inculpatory statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. is nothing but an improvement of the prosecution case.

¶8

Learned counsel for the complainant and the learned A.G.A. have strongly opposed the prayer for bail and submit that the statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C., is unequivocal. It shows that the applicant was an active participant with the prosecutrix being ravished by the co-accused.

¶9

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

¶10

case, in particular, the fact that prima facie the prosexutrix, going by the medico legal estimation of her age, is a major, and, that the prosecution case has been considerably improved from what it is in the first information report across the statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. to the statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C., but without expressing any opinion on merits, this Court finds it to be a fit case for bail.

¶11

Accordingly, the bail application stands allowed.

¶12

Let the applicant Mewa Lal Rajbhar in connection with Case Crime No.101 of 2018, under Sections 363, 366, 376D I.P.C. and 3/4 of POCSO Act, P.S. Birno, District Ghazipur 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:

¶13

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

¶14

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

¶15

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

¶16

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

¶17

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.

¶18

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.

¶19

Order Date :- 12.11.2018

¶20

R./

Mewa Lal Rajbhar v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mewa Lal Rajbhar 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Chetan Chauhan Vs State of U.P.

Bablu Kumar Alias Suraj Kumar Vs State of U.P.

Vishal Vs State of U.P.

Veeran Yadav Vs State of U.P.

Virendra Vs State of U.P.

Vivek Babu Vs State of U.P.