Allowed

Muniram v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC10 Jan 2019BAIL/47638/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The single judge allowed a bail application for the alleged offender. Despite the accusation under Sections 3/4 POCSO, the court noted the beneficiary's age estimation (17 years) and an exculpatory Section 164 Cr.P.C. statement as factors supporting bail without deciding on merits.

What did the court decide?

The applicant was released on bail by executing a personal bond with two sureties, subject to standard conditions including non-tampering with evidence and appearance in court.

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

¶1

Court No. - 64

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 47638 of 2018

¶3

Applicant :- Muniram Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Bibhuti Narayan Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble J.J. Munir,J.

¶5

This is an application for bail on behalf of the applicant, Muniram in connection with Case Crime No. 218 of 2018, under Section 363,366,376 IPC & Section 3/4 POCSO Act, P.S. Pharenda, District Maharajganj.

¶6

Heard Sri Bibhuti Narayan Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Indrajeet Singh Yadav, learned A.G.A. 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, Maharajganj through his certificate dated 11.09.2018, on the basis of an ossification test, is about 17 years. Learned counsel submits that going by the aforesaid medico legal estimation of age, giving allowance for the usual variation of two years, or even one, the prosecutrix would reckon to be a major. He, further, submits that the provisions of the POCSO Act, therefore, would not be attracted. Learned counsel for the applicant has taken the Court through the statement of the prosecutrix recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. which is absolutely exculpatory where the prosecutrix has said that she has gone along with the applicant of her free will, and has married him in a temple. She has further stated that she wants to live with the applicant. Learned counsel submits that looking to the aforesaid exculpatory stand of the prosecutrix, the prosecution case is not at all 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 the case, in particular, the fact that the prosecutrix is prima facie a major and her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. which is exculpatory, but without

¶10

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 Muniram involved in Case Crime No. 218 of 2018, under Section 363,366,376 IPC & Section 3/4 POCSO Act, P.S. Pharenda, District Maharajganj 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

Order Date :- 10.1.2019 BKM/-

Muniram v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Muniram 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

Harish Kumar Alias Babloo Vs State of U.P.

Avnish @ Bhauan Vs State of U.P.

Raju Kushwaha Vs State of U.P.

Mohit Vs State of U.P.

Tottarpal Urf Sanjay Vs State of U.P.

Sanjay Patel Vs State of U.P.