Allowed

Shyam Lal v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC4 Dec 2018BAIL/46311/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge allowed bail to applicant Shyam Lal charged under sections 376 IPC and POCSO Act, finding it a fit case considering the prosecutrix's exculpatory testimony in the pending trial and age discrepancy, without expressing an opinion on merits.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail upon executing personal bond and furnishing two sureties by imposing conditions to not tamper with evidence, threaten witnesses, or abscond.

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

¶1

Court No. - 53

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 46311 of 2018

¶3

Applicant :- Shyam Lal Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Rakesh Prasad,S0161 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 Shyam Lal, in Case Crime No.222 of 2016, in Special Trial No. 57 of 2016 (State Vs. Shyam Lal) under Section 376 IPC, and Section 5(k)/6 POCSO Act, Police Station, Rampur Karkhana, District Deoria.

¶6

Heard Sri Rakesh Prasad, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Indrajeet Singh Yadav, learned AGA along with Sri Rajkumar Yadav, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State.

¶7

The submission of the learned counsel for the applicant is that though during investigation, the prosecutrix had supported the prosecution case in her statements under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C., but in the ongoing trial being S.T. No.57 of 2016, pending before the Special Judge, POCSO Act/Additional District and Sessions Judge, Court No.7, Deoria, the prosecutrix in her dock evidence dated 28.2.2017 deposing as PW-3 has categorically exculpated the applicant saying that she did not make the statements attributed to her under Section 161 Cr.P.C., or even the one before the Magistrate under Section 164 Cr.P.C. She has said that the applicant never enticed her away or took her to the garden, where he ravished her. It is also said in the cross-examination that the statement was being made in Court without undue influence of fear or to save anyone.

¶8

Likewise the first informant, who is the father of the prosecutrix has spoken exculpatory. The mother of the prosecutrix, PW-3, has also done likewise. The doctor who has deposed as PW-8 has testified to the prosecutrix being 18 years of age, which is her age according to the medico legal estimation. He has gone on to say in his cross examination that she could also be 20 years. It is submitted that looking to the aforesaid facts, the provisions of the POCSO Act would not at all attracted. It is urged that the prosecutrix and the other witnesses of fact, that include her father and mother, having spoken exculpatory, it is not lawful to detain the applicant further, pending trial.

¶9

Learned AGA has opposed the prayer for bail and submits that the evidence recorded during trial is in the province of the trial court to assess on which this Court may not act, while considering the present application under Section 439 Cr.P.C.

¶10

Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, the gravity of the offence, the nature of allegations, the severity of punishment, and, in particular, the fact that the prosecutrix has spoken exculpatory during trial as also have the other witnesses of fact, besides the fact that the prosecutrix is, prima facie, a major, 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 Shyam Lal, in Case Crime No.222 of 2016, in Special Trial No. 57 of 2016 (State Vs. Shyam Lal) under Section 376 IPC, and Section 5(k)/6 POCSO Act, Police Station, Rampur Karkhana, District Deoria 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 :- 4.12.2018 NSC

Shyam Lal v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shyam Lal 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

Arvind Kumar Vs State of U.P.

Mukesh Vs State of U.P.

Kalicharan Vs State of U.P.

Manoj Vs State of U.P.

Rinku Kashyap Vs State of U.P.

Rahul Vs State of U.P.