Allowed

Lalaram v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC13 Dec 2018BAIL/41669/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a bail application under Sections 376, 511, 342, 506 IPC and POCSO Act, the court allowed bail where the prosecutrix's statement before a medical officer while declining examination stated nothing wrong happened, creating grave doubt.

What did the court decide?

Release on bail upon executing personal bond and furnishing two sureties with specific conditions against tampering, threatening witnesses or committing similar offences.

Lalaram Vs State of U.P. — Allahabad HC (2018) — LawSathi Research

¶1

Court No. - 53

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 41669 of 2018

¶3

Applicant :- Lalaram Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Usha Srivastava,Lal Chandra Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Alankar Pandey

¶4

Hon'ble J.J. Munir,J.

¶5

Counter affidavit filed today is taken on record.

¶6

In compliance with the order of this Court dated 30.11.2018, the Chief Medical Officer, Banda has constituted a Medical Board whose report has been submitted to this Court in a sealed cover by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Banda. The sealed cover has been opened under orders of this Court. It is exhibited and made part of the record.

¶7

This is an application for bail on behalf of the applicant, Lalaram in connection with Case Crime No. 148 of 2018, under Sections 376, 511, 342, 506 I.P.C. and Section 8 POCSO Act., Police Station Naraini, District Banda.

¶8

Heard Sri Lal Chandra Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Indrajeet Singh Yadav, learned A.G.A. appearing for the State.

¶9

The submission of the learned counsel for the applicant is that a perusal of the medico legal report dated 06.12.2018 indicates that the prosecutrix on the basis of an ossification test has been opined to be 16 years. It is submitted that giving the usual allowance of two years, she would reckon to be a major. It is further submitted that going by the aforesaid medically estimated age, the prosecutrix is clearly a major and the provisions of POCSO Act would not be attracted. Learned counsel for the applicant pointed out that in the statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C., the prosecutrix has come up with an

¶10

allegation of attempt to rape that was recorded on 20.8.2018, where she has given a graphic description of the occurrence that would have left much telltale evidence for the doctor to examine. It is however submitted that the prosecutrix refused to undergo medico legal examination and made a statement, thumb marked by her, on 29.8.2018 which reads to the following effects:-

¶11

"ममेरमे (ससीतता पपुतसी रज्जता) सताथ ककोई गलत कताम नहहीं हहआ मम स्वमेकता समे बबिनता बकससी दबिताव कमे अपनसी आन्तररक शतारसीररक पररकण नहहीं करतानता चताहतसी ह ह "

¶12

It is strenuously urged by the learned counsel for the applicant that the aforesaid statement made by the prosecutrix before the doctor, in confidence, while declining her internal examination, is exculpatory in unqualified terms, and, shows that the earlier statements before the police and the doctor are utter falsehood. He submits that in any case the stand of the prosecutrix, saying that nothing offensive has been done to her, places the prosecution case under a cloud of grave doubt.

¶13

Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail.

¶14

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, that she has, by her thumb marked statement before the doctor while declining to undergo internal medical examination, said that nothing wrong or offensive have been done to her, but without expressing any opinion on merits, this Court, finds it to be a fit case for bail.

¶15

The bail application, accordingly, stands allowed .

¶16

Let the applicant Lalaram involved in Case Crime No. 148 of 2018, under Sections 376, 511, 342, 506 I.P.C. and Section 8

¶17

POCSO Act., Police Station Naraini, District Banda 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:

¶18

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

¶19

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

¶20

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

¶21

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

¶22

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.

¶23

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.

¶24

Order Date :- 13.12.2018 BKM/-

Lalaram v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Lalaram v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

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

bhorik Vs State of U.P.

atul Vs State of U.P.

Ram Das Yadav Vs State of U.P.

Pradeep Kumar Maurya Vs State of U.P.

Sunny @ Sunil Vs State of U.P.