Allowed

Guljar v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC30 Nov 2018BAIL/42184/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In bail application Cabapant No. 42184 of 2018, the court allowed the release on bail of an applicant accused of offences under IPC and POCSO Act. The decision relied on the medical board's opinion that the prosecutrix was a major and an exculpatory statement by her.

What did the court decide?

The applicant was released on bail upon executing a personal bond and furnishing two sureties, subject to specific conditions including non-tampering with evidence and non-harassment of witnesses.

Guljar Vs State of U.P. — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 53

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 42184 of 2018

¶3

Applicant :- Guljar Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Sandeep Kumar Rai,Shyam Narain Rai Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble J.J. Munir,J.

¶5

In compliance with the Court's order dated 15.11.2018, the prosecutrix has been examined by a Medical Board comprising five doctors, in regard to which a report under the signatures of the Chief Medical Officer, and, also signed by the other members of the Medical Board, styled as a age certificate dated 6.11.2018 has been forwarded to this Court in a sealed cover, that was opened under orders of this Court. The report has been perused and is exhibited. It is made part of the record.

¶6

This is an application for bail on behalf of the applicant Guljar, in Case Crime No.223 of 2018, under Sections 363, 366, 376 IPC and Section 3/4 POCSO Act, Police Station Parikshitgarh, District Meerut.

¶7

Heard Sri Dhirendra Pratap Singh, holding brief of Sri S.K. Rai, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri J.B. Singh, learned AGA along with Sri Avanish Shukla, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State.

¶8

The submission of the learned counsel for the applicant is that going by the medico legal estimation of age of the prosecutrix by the Medical Board, indicated in the age certificate dated 6.11.2018 issued by the Chief Medical

¶9

Officer and also signed by the members of the Medical Board, it is evident that the prosecutrix has been opined to be about 18 years. It is submitted that the said medico legal estimation of age clearly reckons the prosecutrix to be a major. It is submitted that the provisions of the POCSO Act are, therefore, not attracted to the facts of the present case. Learned counsel for the applicant has invited the attention of the Court to the statement of the prosecutrix under Section 164 Cr.P.C., that is exculpatory where the prosecutrix has indicated that she went along with the applicant of her free will and has married. The said statement was recorded before the Judicial Magistrate under Section 164 Cr.P.C., a copy of which is on record as Annexure-5 to the affidavit in support of the bail application.

¶10

Learned AGA has opposed the prayer for bail.

¶11

Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, the gravity of the offence, the nature of allegation, the evidence appearing in the case, the severity of punishment, and, in particular, the fact that the prosecutrix is prima facie a major and the statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C., is exculpatory, but without expressing any opinion on merits, this Court finds it to be a fit case for bail.

¶12

The bail application, accordingly, stands allowed .

¶13

Let the applicant Guljar, in Case Crime No.223 of 2018, under Sections 363, 366, 376 IPC and Section 3/4 POCSO Act, Police Station Parikshitgarh, District Meerut be released on bail on executing his personal bond and furnishing two sureties each in the like amount to the

¶14

satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:

¶15

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

¶16

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

¶17

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

¶18

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

¶19

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.

¶20

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.

¶21

Order Date :- 30.11.2018 NSC

Guljar v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Guljar 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

Ritik Vs State of U.P.

Amit Kumar @ Chhakki Lal Vs State of U.P.

Dileep Vs State of U.P.

Ranpal Vs State of U.P.

Iltaf @ Gunga Vs State of U.P.

Ajay Kumar Vs State of U.P.