Single judge court allowed bail application in POCSO and rape case, finding applicant was not named in FIR or prosecution witness statement and no role assigned by prosecutrix in MO.
Released on personal bond and two sureties.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 77
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 24397 of 2019
Applicant :- Nisha Rajpoot Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Hemendra Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Ved Prakash Mishra
Hon'ble Umesh Chandra Tripathi,J.
List revised.
No one has appeared on behalf of informant/opposite party no.2 to argue the case.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. and perused the record.
This bail application has been moved by the applicant who is involved in Case Crime No. 132 of 2019, under Sections 376, 120B I.P.C. and 3/4 POCSO Act, Police Station-Nagina, District-Bijnor.
As per prosecution version, co-accused Sheeshpal was teaching the prosecutrix, aged about 15 years. Co-accused Sheeshpal and Ankur had committed rape on her. First information report was lodged on the information of the prosecutrix by her father against co-accused Sheeshpal and Ankur under Sections 376 I.P.C. and 3/4 & 5/6 Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.
Learned counsel for the applicant contended that applicant is not named in the F.I.R. even though the first information report was lodged on the information of the prosecutrix. Allegation of rape has been made against the co-accused Sheeshpal and Ankur. Only allegation of conspiracy which has been made against the applicant is an afterthought by legal advice. Even in her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C., prosecutrix has not assigned any role to the applicant. Applicant is languishing in jail since 18.05.2019 having no criminal antecedents.
Learned A.G.A., has opposed the prayer for bail. However, admitted this fact that applicant was not named either in the first information report or in the statement of prosecutrix under Section 161 Cr.P.C. For the first time prosecutrix in her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. narrated the involvement of the applicant that applicant locked the door in which
prosecutrix and co-accused Ankur was present.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I find it a fit case for enlarging the applicant on bail. Let the applicant- Nisha Rajpoot, be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on his furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned.
Application stands allowed.
Order Date :- 8.7.2019 AKT
Nisha Rajpoot
Umesh Chandra Tripathi
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
