Dismissed

Krishna v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC2 Nov 2018BAIL/42348/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a bail application under Section 376 IPC and POCSO Act involving a four-year-old child as the prosecutrix, the court rejected the bail prayer due to the gravity of the offence and the strength of the evidence. The court directed the trial court to conclude the pending trial within four months under Section 309 Cr.P.C.

What did the court decide?

Bail application rejected; trial to be concluded within four months; witnesses to be produced via coercive measures.

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

¶1

Court No. - 53

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 42348 of 2018

¶3

Applicant :- Krishna Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Sandeep Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble J.J. Munir,J.

¶5

This is an application for bail on behalf of Krishna, in Case Crime No.36 of 2018, under Section 376 IPC, and Section 3/4 POCSO Act, Police Station Binauli, District Baghpat.

¶6

Heard Sri Sandeep Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri M.P. Singh Gaur, learned AGA along with Sri Ashutosh Diljan appearing on behalf of the State.

¶7

The submission of the learned counsel for the applicant is that he has been falsely implicated. The case has been fabricated against him on account of a dispute as the applicant's family and that of the prosecutrix are neighbours. It is argued that the prosecution has not recorded the statement of any independent witnesses. The applicant is a respectable person with no criminal history and is in jail since 21.1.2018.

¶8

Learned AGA has opposed the prayer for bail and submits that there is categorical allegation of rape in the FIR and likewise in the statement of the prosecutrix under Section 161 Cr.P.C., and Section 164 Cr.P.C., who has indicated in her own words before the Magistrate that she was ravished. It is pointed out that the prosecutrix is a child of four years.

¶9

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

¶10

particular, the statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C., coming from a child of four years, but without expressing any opinion on merits, this Court does not find it to be a fit case for bail at this stage.

¶11

The bail application, accordingly, stands rejected at this stage.

¶12

However, looking to the period of detention of the applicant, it is directed that Sessions Trial No.17 of 2018 pending before the Additional Sessions Judge-I, Baghpat be concluded expeditiously and preferably within four months from the date of 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 the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Vinod Kumar v. 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 shall initiate necessary coercive measures for ensuring their presence.

¶14

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

¶15

Order Date :- 2.11.2018

¶16

NSC

Krishna v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Krishna 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

Tinchu Alias Sarvesh Kumar and 2 Others Vs State of U.P.

Data Ram Vs State of U.P.

Boby Vs State of U.P.

Chetan Chauhan Vs State of U.P.

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

Vishal Vs State of U.P.