Allowed

Harish Kumar Alias Babloo v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC9 Jan 2019BAIL/21546/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the bail application. Relying on medical reports estimating the prosecutrix as a major and her exculpatory statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C., the court found it to be a fit case for bail, though expressly leaving questions of merits for the trial court.

What did the court decide?

The applicant be released on bail upon executing a personal bond and furnishing two sureties, subject to standard conditions.

Harish Kumar Alias Babloo Vs State of U.P. — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 64

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 21546 of 2018

¶3

Applicant :- Harish Kumar Alias Babloo Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Vinay Kumar Pathak,A.K. Mishra,Jay Singh Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Ashish Kumar Gaur

¶4

Hon'ble J.J. Munir,J.

¶5

This is an application for bail on behalf of the applicant, Harish Kumar Alias Babloo in connection with Case Crime No. 730 of 2017, under Sections 363,366,376 IPC and Section 3/4 POCSO Act, P.S. Barkhera, District Pilibhit.

¶6

Heard Sri Jai Singh Yadav alongwith Sri Vinay Kumar Pathak, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Ashish Kumar Gaur, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the complainant and Sri Akhilesh Kumar Mishra, learned A.G.A. alongwith Sri Ashutosh Diljan appearing for the State.

¶7

The submission of the learned counsel for the applicant is that going by the medico legal estimation of the prosecutrix's age, certified by the Chief Medical Officer vide his memo dated 30.12.2017, on the basis of an ossification test, is about 18 years. The submission of the learned counsel for the applicant is that going by the medically estimated age of the prosecutrix, she is clearly a major, where the provisions of the POCSO Act would not apply. Learned counsel has taken the court through the statement of the prosecutrix under Section 164 Cr.P.C. where she has said in unqualified terms that she is aged 18 years; that on 19.12.2017 at 10.00 in the morning she went away leaving her home of her own accord alongwith her lover, Harish to Dehradoon. It is said that the two stayed there as man and wife for 18 days. She has further said that she wants to stay with Harish (the applicant) and has nothing further to add. It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that looking to the said facts, no case for the prosecution worth detaining the applicant pending trial is made out.

¶8

Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail.

¶9

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature of allegations, the gravity of the offence, the severity of punishment, the evidence appearing in

¶10

the case, in particular, the fact that the prosecutrix is prima facie a major and her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. where she has said exculpatory, but without expressing any opinion on merits, this Court, finds it to be a fit case for bail.

¶11

The bail application, accordingly, stands allowed .

¶12

Let the applicant Harish Kumar Alias Babloo involved in Case Crime No. 730 of 2017, under Sections 363,366,376 IPC and Section 3/4 POCSO Act, P.S. Barkhera, District Pilibhit 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:

¶13

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

¶14

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

¶15

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

¶16

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

¶17

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.

¶18

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.

¶19

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

¶20

Order Date :- 9.1.2019 BKM/-

Harish Kumar Alias Babloo v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Harish Kumar Alias Babloo 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

Chhote Lal Vs State of U.P.

Rahul Vs State of U.P.

Pappu Vs State of U.P.

Avnish @ Bhauan Vs State of U.P.

Raju Kushwaha Vs State of U.P.

Prem Sagar Yadav Vs State of U.P.