Allowed

Ramji Turha v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC15 May 2019BAIL/2304/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court allowed the bail application of Ramji Turha accused under Sections 363, 366, 376 IPC and POCSO Act. Despite the grave nature of the offense, bail was granted allowing a personal bond and two sureties subject to specific undertakings not to tamper with evidence or intimidate witnesses.

What did the court decide?

The applicant is released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties in the like amount, subject to four conditions regarding evidence tampering, criminal activity, witness intimidation, a

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

¶1

Court No. - 79

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 2304 of 2019

¶3

Applicant :- Ramji Turha Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Raj Kumar Singh,Ajay Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Ram Krishna Gautam,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. and perused the record.

¶6

By means of this application, the applicant Ramji Turha, who is involved in Case Crime No. 59 of 2018, under Sections 363, 366, 376 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 POCSO Act, P.S. Sukhpura, District Ballia, is seeking enlargement on bail.

¶7

It has been submitted by learned counsel for applicant that applicant is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in this very case crime number, whereas prosecutrix was major and she had gone upon her own volition, got herself married, as was said in statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. Prosecutrix was given in custody of her parents, but she fled again, hence neither she could not be examined under Section 164 Cr.P.C. nor her medical age determination could be possible. Accused-applicant is of no criminal antecedents. Hence bail has been prayed for.

¶8

Learned A.G.A. vehemently opposed the prayer for bail, but could not dispute the fact that owing to subsequent fleeing of prosecutrix neither her age determination test could not be done nor she could be examined under Section 164 Cr.P.C.

¶9

Perusal of first information report reveals that it was got lodged on 21.05.2018, whereas occurrence was of 10.05.2018 i.e. delayed report, in which accused-applicant was assigned the role of enticing and taking of Suman Chauhan, whereas she was recovered along with accused-applicant with no protest or rescue call. Rather she in her statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. has categorically said to be with accused-applicant under her own volition and she got herself married in a temple. She was said to be of 16 years, but owing to her re-fleeing medical age determination test could not be possible.

¶10

Considering the rival submissions, nature of accusation, severity of punishment in case of conviction and nature of

¶11

supporting evidence, reasonable apprehension of tampering with the witness and prima facie case, without expressing any opinion on merit of the case, this bail application is allowed.

¶12

Let the applicant Ramji Turha , involved in above mentioned case crime number be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of court concerned, subject to following conditions:

¶13

The applicant will not tamper with the evidence.

¶14

The applicant will not indulge in any criminal activity.

¶15

The applicant will not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witnesses and co-operate in the trial.

¶16

The applicant will appear regularly on each and every date fixed by the trial court unless his personal appearance is exempted through counsel by the court concerned.

¶17

In the event of breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the court below will be at liberty to proceed to cancel his bail.

¶18

Order Date :- 15.5.2019 NS

Ramji Turha v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramji Turha 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

Shailendra Rai Vs State of U.P.

Lalit Mohan Bhatt Vs State of U.P.

Kishan Raikawar Vs State of U.P.

Mahesh Kumar Vs State of U.P.

Smt. Vimlesh Vs State of U.P.

Jitendra Kumar Vs State of U.P.