Allowed

Shadab v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC24 Jan 2019BAIL/3455/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court allowed a bail application filed by Shadab, accused under IPC and POCSO sections. The court found it fit considering prima facie evidence that the prosecutrix is a major and her exculpatory statement, without expressing an opinion on merits.

What did the court decide?

Released on bail on executing a personal bond and furnishing two sureties, subject to standard conditions against tampering with evidence and harassment of witnesses.

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

¶1

Court No. - 64

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 3455 of 2019

¶3

Applicant :- Shadab Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Kamal Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble J.J. Munir,J.

¶5

This is a bail application on behalf of the applicant Shadab in connection with Case Crime No. 463 of 2018 under Section 363, 366, 376 IPC and Section 3/4 Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, P.S. Kotwali Nagar, District Mau.

¶6

Heard Sri K.K.Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Ashok Kumar Rai, learned counsel for the complainant 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 going by the medico legal estimation of the prosecutrix's age certified by the Chief Medical Officer, Mau along with a board of doctors through his memo dated 01.12.2018, the prosecutrix is aged about 18-19 years. The aforesaid opinion has been formed on the basis of an ossification test and certain other medical parameters. The submission of learned counsel for the applicant is that the prosecutrix is clearly a major, and, therefore, the provisions of POCSO Act would not be attracted. Learned counsel for the applicant has taken the Court through the statement of the prosecutrix under Section 164 Cr.P.C. which according to him clearly says that the prosecutrix has gone along with the applicant of her free will on 07.09.2018 and married him in accordance with Muslim rites on 29.09.2018. It is further said that two are living together as man and wife. It is also pointed out by the learned counsel for the applicant that in the statement of the prosecutrix under Section 164 Cr.P.C., the prosecutrix has also mentioned that her father indulges in domestic violence and also does not keep her well provided for. It is further said there that the father was going to sell her off.

¶8

Sri Ashok Kumar Rai, learned counsel for the complainant has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and submitted

¶9

that the prosecutrix is a minor. Learned AGA has likewise opposed the prayer for bail.

¶10

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

¶11

Accordingly, the bail application stands allowed.

¶12

Let the applicant Shadab involved in Case Crime No. 463 of 2018 under Section 363, 366, 376 IPC and Section 3/4 Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, P.S. Kotwali Nagar, District Mau 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:

¶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 further clarified that the trial court shall be

¶20

absolutely free to arrive at its independent conclusions on the basis of evidence led unaffected by anything said in this order.

¶21

Order Date :- 24.1.2019 Deepak

Shadab v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shadab 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

Neeraj Alias Rahul Kumar Singh Vs State of U.P.

Rukam Lal @ Diwari Vs State of U.P.

Harishchandra @ Haricharan Pal Vs State of U.P.

Amit Vs State of U.P.

Hemraj Vs State of U.P.

Ram Singh @ Babu Ji Vs State of U.P.