Allowed

Mahesh Giri v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC5 Dec 2018BAIL/40986/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 40986 of 2018, the court allowed the bail application of Mahesh Giri charged under POCSO and IPC sections. Despite opposing bail, the court found the applicant a fit case for release due to non-nomination in the FIR, absence in early police statements, and family conflict, without ruling on merits.

What did the court decide?

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

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

¶1

Court No. - 53

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 40986 of 2018

¶3

Applicant :- Mahesh Giri Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Suneel Kumar Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble J.J. Munir,J.

¶5

This is an application for bail on behalf of the applicant, Mahesh Giri in connection with Case Crime No. 118 of 2016, under Section 363,366,368,376 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 POCSO Act, police station Aurai, District Bhadohi.

¶6

Heard Sri Suneel Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Shiva Kant Singh, learned counsel who has put in appearance on behalf of the complainant and Sri Sudhir Kumar Pathak, learned AGA, alongwith Sri Avaneesh Shukla appearing for the State.

¶7

The submission of the learned counsel for the applicant is that he is not named in the FIR that has been lodged by the prosecutrix's brother, nominating the co-accused Krishna Giri and Rohit Giri. It is submitted that the applicant has been falsely implicated on account of a long standing animosity between the family, where litigation rife between the parties. The prosecutrix was recovered during investigation from the custody of co-accused, Vijay Kumar Giri, whom she is said to have married. It is pointed out that in the statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C., the prosecutrix has not at all named the applicant but only Vijay Kumar Giri, whom she has married, or as the prosecution case goes, was forced to marry. In the statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C., the name of the applicant has figured with the marginal role of putting her under fear and causing her to marry the main accused, Vijay Kumar Giri. It is also argued that in the statement to the doctor made by the

¶8

prosecutrix on 26.5.2016, she has not even hinted about a role in the entire crime for the applicant. It is pointed out further that during investigation the applicant's complicity was not vindicated and he was exculpated. The applicant was summoned to stand his trial on the basis of testimony of the prosecutrix, PW-2, in the dock, by the trial court, in exercise of powers under Section 319 CrPC. It is urged that the role assigned to the applicant is marginal, and, he has been falsely implicated at the behest of the prosecutrix's family, taking advantage of the fact that the main accused, Vijay Kumar Giri is facing trial in relation to the offence, principally charged against him. It is urged that there is hardly any evidence appearing against the applicant, and, there is no explanation why the prosecutrix did not name the applicant in her earliest statement recorded by the police after recovery, which creates a serious cloud of doubt about the prosecution, so far as the applicant is concerned.

¶9

Learned A.G.A. and the learned counsel for the complainant have opposed the prayer for bail.

¶10

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature of allegations, the gravity of the offence, the severity of punishment, the evidence appearing in the case, in particular, the fact that that the applicant is not nominated in the FIR, in the statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. recorded earliest after recovery, or in any further statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. or in the statement made to the doctor during her medico legal examination but named in the statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. and in the dock evidence with a role of facilitating the main accused in carrying away the prosecutrix forcibly, the history of litigation between the families of the prosecutrix and the applicant, but without expressing any opinion on merits, this

¶11

Court, finds it to be a fit case for bail.

¶12

The bail application, accordingly, stands allowed .

¶13

Let the applicant , Mahesh Giri involved in Case Crime No. 118 of 2016, under Section 363,366,368,376 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 POCSO Act, police station Aurai, District Bhadohi be released on bail on executing his 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 :- 5.12.2018 BKM/-

Mahesh Giri v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mahesh Giri 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

Manoj Vs State of U.P.

Rinku Kashyap Vs State of U.P.

Rahul Vs State of U.P.

Manoj Nishad Vs State of U.P.

Kuldeep Singh Vs State of U.P.

Shivam Gupta Vs State of U.P.