Allowed

Saurabh v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC11 Sept 2019BAIL/34964/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bail application allowed for accused Saurabh in a POCSO and IPC case alleging abduction and rape. Court found a prima facie case for bail due to conflicting age testimonies, consensual conduct, and lack of initial complaint, granting subject to bonds and conditions.

What did the court decide?

Application allowed; applicant released on bail by furnishing personal bond and two sureties in like amount subject to conditions of not tampering with evidence, not engaging in criminal activity, not

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

¶1

Court No. - 79

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 34964 of 2019

¶3

Applicant :- Saurabh Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Shri Krishan Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Ram Krishna Gautam,J.

¶5

Vakalatnma filed, today, by Sri M.F. Ansari, Advocate, on behalf of informant, is taken on record.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned private counsel, appearing for informant and learned A.G.A. Perused the record.

¶7

By means of this application, the accused-applicant, Saurabh, who is involved in Case Crime No. 297 of 2019, under Sections 363, 366 and 376 I.P.C., read with 3/4 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (in short 'POCSO') Act, 2912, Police Station-Quarsi, DistrictAligarh, is seeking enlargement on bail.

¶8

Learned counsel for accused-applicant argued that the accused-applicant is innocent; he has been falsely implicated in this very case crime number wherein there was a consensual living of prosecutorix with accusedapplicant, without any complaint or hue and cry; she has been held to be of 18 years of age in the medical age determination; she has said to be of same age in the statement recorded, under Section 161 of Cr.P.C., with no accusation of her abduction or rape by accused-applicant, rather a consensual marriage in between her and the accused-applicant was performed; while to be examined by the Medical Officer, she refused to get her medically examined internally; she was held to be of 18 years of age in medical age determination; she turned her statement, recorded, under Section 164 Cr.P.C., but in it also, there is a fact of consensual living with accused-applicant. Accusedapplicant is of no criminal antecedents, but is languishing in Jail since 3.5.2019, hence a prayer for grant of bail, during trial, has been made.

¶9

Learned private counsel, appearing for the informant as well as learned A.G.A. vehemently opposed prayer for bail with this contention that as per educational qualification record, prosecutorix was of 14 years of age and in her statement, recorded, under Section 164 Cr.P.C., she has levelled accusation of abduction as well as rape against accused-applicant.

¶10

Having heard learned counsel for both sides and gone through the materials on records as well as report and statements, it is apparent that the report was got lodged

¶11

for offences under Sections 363 and 366 IPC against accused-applicants, Saurabh and Sumit. Prosecutorix was recovered. She in her statement, recorded, under Section 161 Cr.P.C., has said herself to be of 18 years of age, having love affair with accused-applicant. She had gone with accused-applicant on her own volition and while was on her way to go to court for marriage, she was apprehended by her family members, but she refused to get her internally medical examined. Her age was held to be of 18 years. However, subsequently, in her statement, recorded, under Section 164 of Cr.P.C., she took a turn, but it is admitted that she lived for 15 to 16 days, with accused-applicant, without any complaint being made either to any Police Authority or any other authority.

¶12

Under all above fats and circumstances, nature of accusation, severity of punishment in case of conviction and nature of supporting evidence, reasonable apprehension of tampering with the witness and prima facie case, without expressing any opinion on merit of the case, a case for grant of bail, during trial, is made out.

¶13

Accordingly, this bail application is allowed.

¶14

Let the applicant, Saurabh, 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:

¶15

The applicant will not tamper with the evidence.

¶16

The applicant will not indulge in any criminal activity.

¶17

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

¶18

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.

¶19

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

¶20

Order Date :- 11.9.2019

¶21

bgs/

Saurabh v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Saurabh v. State of U.P. and Another

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

Bachu @ Hira Lal Vs State of U.P.

Arvind Parmar @ Bunty and 2 Others Vs State of U.P.

Arvind Parmar @ Banti Raja and 2 Others Vs State of U.P.

Dr.Rajnish Vs State of U.P. and Another

Sanjay Verma and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Jeetu Vs State of U.P.