Allowed

Munendra v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC22 Nov 2018BAIL/44594/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application allowed the release of the applicant, Munendra, in connection with offenses under the IPC and POCSO Act. The Court found it a fit case for bail based on an exculpatory statement by the prosecutrix and a prima facie indication that she was a major, despite the gravity of the charges.

What did the court decide?

The applicant is released on bail upon executing a personal bond and furnishing two sureties, subject to conditions prohibiting tampering with evidence, threatening witnesses, appearing in court, and

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

¶1

Court No. - 53

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 44594 of 2018

¶3

Applicant :- Munendra Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Pankaj Satsangi 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, Munendra in connection with Case Crime No. 733 of 2015, under Section 363, 365, 366, 368, 376 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 and 17/18 POCSO Act, Police Station Zarif Nagar, District Budaun.

¶6

Heard Sri Pankaj Satsangi, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri M.P. Singh Gaud, learned AGA appearing for the State.

¶7

The submission of the learned counsel for the applicant is that according to the medico legal examination of her age dated 25.11.2017, she has been opined to be 17 years. It is argued that giving the usual allowance of two years, the prosecutrix would now reckon to be about 19 years and clearly a major. The learned counsel for the applicant has invited the attention of the Court to the statement of the prosecutrix under Section 164 Cr.P.C. which shows that the prosecutrix and her sister escaped from home on account of domestic violence by their father, and, while on way, they met one Mamta, whose son Munendra, she lateron, after eight months, married. It is argued by learned counsel for the applicant that looking to the statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. that is completely exculpatory, and, to the fact that the prosecutrix appears to be a major

¶8

with the usual variation in age to the benefit of the accused, the applicant is entitled to bail.

¶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 medico legal estimation of age, going by which prima facie with the margin of variation in age, the prosecutrix appears to be a major and the statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. that is clearly exculpatory, 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 Munendra involved in Case Crime No. 733 of 2015, under Section 363, 365, 366, 368, 376 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 and 17/18 POCSO Act, Police Station Zarif Nagar, 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

¶17

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. Order Date :- 22.11.2018 BKM/-

Munendra v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Munendra 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.

Pintu Vs State of U.P.

Azeem Vs State of U.P.