Allowed

Tarun Sharma v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC6 Dec 2018BAIL/5526/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court allowed a bail application challenging offences under the POCSO Act and IPC. The court found the case fit for bail noting the prosecutrix was prima facie a major and the incident reflected a marriage of free will that failed, rather than rape, without expressing an opinion on merits.

What did the court decide?

The applicant was released on bail on executing a personal bond and furnishing two sureties each, subject to specific conditions regarding tampering, harassment, and appearance.

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

¶1

Court No. - 53

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 5526 of 2018

¶3

Applicant :- Tarun Sharma Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Narendra Kumar,Avnish Kumar Srivastava,Dhirendra Kumar Verma,Pawan Kumar Yadav,Piyush Tripathi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Ehtesham Akhtar

¶4

Hon'ble J.J. Munir,J.

¶5

Counter affidavit filed today on behalf of the State is taken on record.

¶6

This is an application for bail on behalf of the applicant Tarun Sharma, in Case Crime No.878 of 2017, under Sections 363, 376, 506, 312 IPC, and Section 3/4 POCSO Act, Police Station, Shahibabad, District Ghaziabad.

¶7

Heard Sri Piyush Tripathi, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Indrajeet Singh Yadav, learned AGA 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 the prosecutrix's age recorded in the medico legal certificate dated 9.5.2017 issued by the Chief Medical Officer, Ghaziabad, along with two other doctors, a Radiologist and a Dental Surgeon, a copy of which has been produced before the Court by the learned AGA as part of the case diary, the prosecutrix, on the basis of requisite scientific analysis, has been opined to be aged about 17 years. It is submitted that going by the permissible variation in age by two years or even one, that is to be construed in favour of the applicant, the prosecutrix would clearly reckon to be a major. It is submitted, therefore, that the provisions of the POCSO Act

¶9

would not be attracted. Learned counsel for the applicant has taken this Court through the statement of the prosecutrix under Section 164 Cr.P.C. A reading of the statement shows that it is a case where the prosecutrix married the applicant of her free will after being into a relationship, contrary to the wishes of her parents. It does disclose that the marriage has been tumultuous one, but it does not show it to be a case of rape at all. The submission is that the allegation of rape has come forth on account of the fact that the family members of the prosecutrix did not bless the couple and the marriage was contrary to their wishes.

¶10

Learned AGA has opposed the prayer for bail and submits that looking to the statement of the prosecutrix and also the informant under Section 161 Cr.P.C., a case is clearly made out.

¶11

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 going by the medico legal estimation of the prosecutrix's age, she is prima facie a major and the fact that the statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C., recorded before the Magistrate clearly shows it to be a marriage by the prosecutrix solemnized of her free will, which has not worked out, 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 Tarun Sharma , in Case Crime No.878 of 2017, under Sections 363, 376, 506, 312 IPC, and Section 3/4 POCSO Act, Police Station, Shahibabad, District Ghaziabad 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:

¶14

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

¶15

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

¶16

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

¶17

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

¶20

Order Date :- 6.12.2018 NSC

Tarun Sharma v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tarun Sharma 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

Rajesh Vs State of U.P.

Mahesh Giri Vs State of U.P.

Roop Kishor Vs State of U.P.

Sunil Kumar Vs State of U.P.

Smt. Pramila Vs State of U.P.

Sunil Vs State of U.P.