Allowed

Sumit @ Satendra v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC17 Nov 2018BAIL/6546/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single Judge Court allowed bail to the applicant charged with offences under IPC and PCPOCSA, finding the case fit for bail due to the exculpatory nature of the prosecutrix's dock evidence, though reserving opinion on merits.

What did the court decide?

Released on personal bond with two sureties against conditions including not tampering with evidence or witnesses and appearing before the trial court.

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

¶1

Court No. - 53

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 6546 of 2018

¶3

Applicant :- Sumit @ Satendra Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Prem Sagar Verma,Narendra Mohan

¶4

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble J.J. Munir,J.

¶6

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

¶7

This is an application for bail on behalf of Sumit @ Satendra, in Case Crime No. 110 of 2017, under Sections 363, 376-D, 120-B IPC and section 5g, 6, 16, 17 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offence Act, Police Station Badgaon, District Saharanpur.

¶8

Heard Sri Narendra Mohan, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Sudhir Kumar Pathak, learned AGA along with Ashutosh Diljan, appearing on behalf of the State.

¶9

The submission of the learned counsel for the applicant is that he has been falsely implicated and incarcerated pending trial on the basis of a false stand taken by the informant and the prosecutrix, in their statements under section 161 Cr.P.C., as also the statement under section 164 Cr.P.C. He submits that the prosecutrix has deposed, in ongoing Special Case No. 77 of 2017, before the court of Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 8, Saharanpur, that the applicant, Sumit alias Satendra alongwith other nominated accused, are not those, who have ravished her. She has also said that not only the persons nominated but no one ravished her . She was declared hostile and crossexamined by the prosecution but she has stood ground. Upon being confronted by the statement under section 161 Cr.P.C., she has deposed that she has never made such a statement to the police, and, to the statement under section 164 Cr.P.C., she says that it was made under

¶10

pressure from the police and threats extended by them. The said deposition of the prosecutrix is on record as Annexure-2 to the supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of the applicant. The first informant, who is the father of the prosecutrix, and, examined in the ongoing trial as PW1, has deposed in the same vein. The submission of learned counsel for the applicant is that looking to the dock evidence of the prosecutrix and first informant, there is no justification to keep the applicant in further detention pending trial.

¶11

Learned AGA has opposed the prayer for bail and submits that the statements under sections 161 Cr.P.C. as also 164 Cr.P.C and other materials collected during investigation are inculpatory and so far as the dock evidence of the prosecutrix etc. are concerned, the evaluation of that lies in the province of the trial.

¶12

Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, the gravity of the offence, the nature of allegation, the severity of punishment, the evidence appearing in the case, in particular, the fact that the deposition of the prosecutrix and the first informant are exculpatory in unqualified terms, but without expressing any opinion on merits, this Court finds it to be a fit case for bail.

¶13

The bail application, accordingly, stands allowed .

¶14

Let the applicant, Sumit alias Satendra, in Case Crime No. 110 of 2017, under Sections 363, 376-D, 120-B IPC and section 5g, 6, 16, 17 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offence Act, Police Station Badgaon, District Saharanpur 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:

¶15

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

¶16

ii) The applicant shall not threaten or harass the

¶17

prosecution witnesses.

¶18

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

¶19

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

¶20

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. 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.

¶21

Order Date :- 17.11.2018 Puspendra

Sumit @ Satendra v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sumit @ Satendra 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

Surajpal Vs State of U.P. and Another

Sulendra Kumar Vishwakarma Vs State of U.P.

Jamal Akhtar Vs State of U.P.

Shankar Vs State of U.P.

Mukesh Chandra Vs State of U.P.

Monu Alias Bhudev Vs State of U.P.