Allowed

Shebu v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC1 Nov 2019BAIL/17069/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this bail application, the Court granted bail to the applicant, Shebu, an accused in a POCSO and rape offence. The victim was 18 years old. The Court noted contradictions in the victim's statements and findings of no criminal history for the applicant, ordering release under personal bond with two sureties.

What did the court decide?

Released on bail subject to personal bond with two sureties and specified conditions including non-tampering with witnesses and sincere cooperation in trial.

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

¶1

Court No. - 78

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 17069 of 2018

¶3

Applicant :- Shebu Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Pradeep Kumar Bhardwaj,Deepak Kumar Srivastava,Ganesh Shanker Srivastava,Gunjan Sharma Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Siddharth,J.

¶5

Heard Smt. Gunjan Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶6

The submission is that the age of the victim as per medical report is 18 years. The victim has admitted in her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. that when Rashid asked her to marry she initially refused on the ground that they belong to different religions. Thereafter he said that out blood are common hence she accompanied all the three accuseds. Thereafter she has made allegation that the offence of rape was committed by accuseds, Rashid and Jamshed and applicant, Shebu, did vediography of the same. It has been submitted that the victim willingly accompanied them. The victim has refused her internal medical examination. In her statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. she has stated that applicant, Shebu and co-accused, Jamshed, did not committed any rape on her. She has admitted her relationship with Rashid. It has been submitted that there are contradictions in the statement of the victim in her statement under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. The applicant is in jail since 14.02.2018 and has no criminal history to his credit.

¶7

Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the aforesaid facts as argued by learned counsel for the applicant.

¶8

After considering the rival submissions noted hereinabove, larger mandate of Article 21 of the Constitution of India and the material brought on record and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case and considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the opinion that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail.

¶9

Let the applicant Shebu , be released on bail in Case Crime No. 34 of 2018, under Sections- 363, 366, 376D IPC and Section 7/8 POCSO Act, Police Station- Rudhauli, District- Basti, be

¶10

released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions which are being imposed in the interest of justice :-

¶11

The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence by intimidating/ pressurizing the witnesses, during the investigation or trial.

¶12

The applicant shall cooperate in the trial sincerely without seeking any adjournment.

¶13

The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal activity or commission of any crime after being released on bail.

¶14

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail. Identity, status and residence proof of the applicant and sureties be verified by the court concerned before the bonds are accepted.

¶15

Order Date :- 1.11.2019

¶16

Rohit

Shebu v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shebu 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Amit Alias Pagge Batham Vs State of U.P.

Sunil Vs State of U.P.

Deepak Vs State of U.P.

Prabhat Kumar Singh and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Jamshed Vs State of U.P.

Talib @ S.P City Vs State of U.P.