Allowed

Saurabh v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC8 Feb 2018CRLA/101/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this criminal appeal, the High Court allowed the appeal and set aside the order rejecting bail. The appellant was held to have made out a case for bail despite allegations under POCSO Act and IPC, after perusing the record and considering the nature of allegations and period of custody.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order rejecting bail is set aside. The appellant is released on bail upon furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties with specific conditions.

Saurabh Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 22

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 101 of 2018 Appellant :- Saurabh Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Appellant :- Rajeev Kumar Saxena Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶3

Hon'ble Aniruddha Singh,J.

¶4

Heard Sri Rajeev Kumar Saxena, learned Counsel for the appellant, learned A.G.A. and perused the record.

¶5

The present Criminal Appeal has been filed against the order dated 22.11.2017 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge/Special POCSO Act, Auraiya in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 1179 of 2017, in Case Crime No. 362 of 2017, under Sections 363, 366, 354A I.P.C., Section 3(2)V SC/ST Act and 7/8 POCSO Act, P.S. Bela, District Auraiya whereby bail application was rejected.

¶6

According to prosecution case, the first information report was lodged against the present appellant namely Saurabh alleging that on 16.10.2017 at about 12:00 hours in the day time he abducted the 14 years daughter of the informant. The first information report was lodged on 17.10.2017 after one day of the incident and the prosecutrix was recovered by the police alone on 18.10.2017.

¶7

Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the appellant has been falsely implicated in the present case; there is no previous criminal history against the appellant; in the statement recorded under Section 161 & 164 Cr.P.C. the prosecutrix has stated that she went with the applicant (Saurabh) of her own free will and free consent and she has stated nothing against the appellant; that the prosecutrix has went with the appellant with her own free will and free consent; she knew Saurabh and he wandered her here and there; she has stated nothing about sexual harassment by the appellant; the statement of the prosecutrix was recorded after ten days of her recovery; he will not misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate in trial; the appellant is languishing in jail since 01.11.2017 (more than three months).

¶8

Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail but admitted that there is no criminal history against the appellant and submits that appeal has to be dismissed.

¶9

For the foregoing discussions, facts of the case, nature of allegation and period of custody, gravity of offence, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court is of the view that the appellant has made out a case for bail. The appeal is allowed. Impugned order dated 22.11.2017 rejecting bail of appellant is hereby set aside.

¶10

Let the appellant/applicant Saurabh be released on bailin Criminal Misc. Bail

¶11

Application No. 1179 of 2017, in Case Crime No. 362 of 2017, under Sections 363, 366, 354A I.P.C., Section 3(2)V SC/ST Act and 7/8 POCSO Act, P.S. Bela, District Auraiya on his furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:

¶12

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

¶13

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

¶14

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

¶15

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

¶16

v) The appellant/applicant shall not directly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade the applicant from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶17

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the court below shall be at liberty to cancel the bail.

¶18

Order Date :- 8.2.2018

¶19

sailesh

Saurabh v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Saurabh v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

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

Kanti Vs State of U.P.

Mohd. Akram and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ashu Yadav @ Aashish Vs State of U.P. and Another

Anwar Vs State of U.P.

Rameshwar Vs State of U.P.

Ravi Kumar Vs State of U.P.