Allowed

Sanjay Patel v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC10 Jan 2019BAIL/1378/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court allowed a bail application by Sanjay Patel, a first-time accused in a case involving allegations under Section 376 IPC and POCSO. Granting bail due to discrepancies between the FIR and the prosecutrix's statements, lack of mention of the applicant in key allegations, and medico-legal reports showing no injuries or signs of penetration.

What did the court decide?

Release of the applicant from jail on bail by executing a personal bond and furnishing two sureties each in the like amount.

Sanjay Patel Vs State of U.P. — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 64

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 1378 of 2019

¶3

Applicant :- Sanjay Patel Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Krishnaji Khare,Mrityunjay Khare Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble J.J. Munir,J.

¶5

This is a bail application on behalf of the applicant Sanjay Patel in connection with Case Crime No. 6 of 2018 under Section 376 IPC and Section 5/6 Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, P.S. Reotipur, District Ghazipur.

¶6

Heard Sri Mrityunjay Khare, leared counsel for the applicant and Sri Akhilesh Kumar Mishra, learned AGA along with Sri Ashutosh Diljan, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State.

¶7

The submission of learned counsel for the applicant is that though the applicant is named in the FIR lodged by the mother of the prosecutrix, and in the statement of the prosecutrix under Section 161 Cr.P.C. there is absolutely no allegation against the applicant in the statement of the prosecutrix recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., where the allegation of gang rape is against four specifically nominated persons amongst whom the applicant's name does not figure. Likewise, in the statement of the prosecutrix made to the doctor in confidence during her medico legal examination, the prosecutrix has nominated the four accused whom she has nominated in her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. along with unnamed accused numbering eight in all but there is no mention of applicant's name in connection with the present crime. Learned counsel for the applicant has further pointed out that a perusal of the medico legal report shows that there is no injury internal or external sustained by the prosecutrix, and the doctor has expressed a clear opinion that "there are no signs suggestive of penetration of vagina/anal." The submission of learned counsel for the applicant is that the aforesaid medico legal evidence does not support a case of rape much less gang rape. It is also argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that the doctor on the basis of an ossification test vide her opinion dated 15.08.2018 has opined the prosecutrix to be above 18 years. As such, the provisions of POCSO Act would not be attracted. It is submitted further that the applicant is in jail since 30.03.2018, and, has no criminal history.

¶8

Learned AGA has opposed the prayer for bail.

¶9

Considering the overall facts and circumstances, the nature of allegations, the gravity of offence, the severity of the punishment, the evidence appearing against the accused, in particular, the fact that the prosecutrix is clearly a major, the fact that though the applicant is nominated in the FIR and the statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C., he is not at all mentioned in the statement of the prosecutrix under Section 164 Cr.P.C., and that made to the doctor during medico legal examination, the fact that the medico legal report shows no injuries internal or external, but without expressing any opinion on merits, this Court finds it to be a fit case for bail. It is made clear that the accused nominated in the statement of the prosecutrix before the Magistrate under Section 164 Cr.P.C. and before the Doctor shall not to be entitled to claim parity

¶10

Accordingly, the bail application stands allowed.

¶11

Let the applicant Sanjay Patel involved in Case Crime No. 6 of 2018 under Section 376 IPC and Section 5/6 Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, P.S. Reotipur, District Ghazipur be released on bail on executing a personal bond and furnishing two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:

¶12

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

¶13

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

¶14

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

¶15

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

¶16

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.

¶17

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.

¶18

It is clarified that anything said in this order is limited to the purpose of determination of this bail application and will in no

¶19

way be construed as an expression on the merits of the case. It is clarified that the trial court shall be absolutely free to arrive at its independent conclusions on the basis of evidence lead unaffected by anything said in this order.

¶20

Order Date :- 10.1.2019

¶21

Deepak

Sanjay Patel v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sanjay Patel 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

Harish Kumar Alias Babloo Vs State of U.P.

Avnish @ Bhauan Vs State of U.P.

Raju Kushwaha Vs State of U.P.

Mohit Vs State of U.P.

Muniram Vs State of U.P.

Tottarpal Urf Sanjay Vs State of U.P.