Allowed

Pintu v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC22 Nov 2018BAIL/44590/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court granted bail to the applicant in a trial covering IPC 363, 366, 376 and POCSO offences. Relying on the medicolegal finding that the prosecutrix is a major and prior exculpatory statements, the court held it to be a fit case for bail despite the grave nature of allegations.

What did the court decide?

Released on bail with personal bond, two sureties, and conditions against tampering, harassing witnesses, committing similar offences.

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

¶1

Court No. - 53

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 44590 of 2018

¶3

Applicant :- Pintu Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Ravi Shankar Tripathi 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, Pintu in connection with S.S.T. No. 183 of 2017 arising out of Case Crime No. 451 of 2015, under Sections 363,366,376 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 POCSO Act, P.S. Musajhag, District Budaun.

¶6

Heard Sri Ravi Shankar Tripathi, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri M.P. Singh Gaud, learned AGA alongwith Sri Abhinav Tripathi appearing for the State.

¶7

The submission of the learned counsel for the applicant is that the prosecutrix is a major, going by the medico legal estimation of her age, where on the basis of an ossification test, she has been opined by the Chief Medical Officer, Budaun to be aged about 17 years. He submits that giving the usual allowance of two years - even one - the prosecutrix would reckon to be a major. He has invited the attention of the Court to the statement of the prosecutrix under Section 164 Cr.PC. where she has spoken exculpatory in terms that she went over to the applicant's house herself on that night and asked him to marry her whereafter the two proceeded to Allahabad and filed a petition before this Court seeking civil protection after marrying in a temple. The learned counsel for the applicant has invited the attention of the Court to the order

¶8

of this Court in Writ C No. 29021 of 2015 praying for civil protection that was disposed of vide order dated 19.5.2015 directing that no one will interfere with the life and liberty of the petitioners including their peaceful living, with the stipulation that the order will not enure to protect the petitioner against criminal proceedings pursuant to an FIR. An FIR being lodged, the same was challenged by the applicant before this Court vide Criminal Miscellaneous Writ Petition No. 1605 of 2016, where, this Court, after perusing the statement under Section 164 CrPC disposed of the petition with a direction that pending investigation the petitioner of the said writ petition (the applicant here) shall not be arrested. The submission of the learned counsel for the applicant is that looking to the entire facts and circumstances of the case, the prosecution against the applicant has no legs to stand and his incarceration in present application is a travesty of justice.

¶9

Learned A.G.A. has 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 the prosecutrix, going by the medico legal estimation of her age, is a major, the statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. is exculpatory, the applicant was protected by interim orders of this Court both by way of civil protection and also pending investigation based on the statement of the prosecutrix 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

The bail application, accordingly, stands allowed .

¶12

Let the applicant Pintu involved in S.S.T. No. 183 of 2017 arising out of Case Crime No. 451 of 2015, under Sections 363,366,376 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 POCSO Act, P.S. Musajhag, District Budaun 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:

¶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 :- 22.11.2018 BKM/-

Pintu v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pintu 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

Sunil Mishra Vs State of U.P.

Kuldeep Vs State of U.P.

Deepu @ Anuj Kumar Vs State of U.P.

Suneel Singh Vs State of U.P.

Munendra Vs State of U.P.

Azeem Vs State of U.P.