Allowed

Prem Sagar Yadav v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC9 Jan 2019BAIL/48276/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a bail application under sections 376 IPC and POCSO Act, the court allowed release on bail considering the prosecutrix is a major based on medical age estimation and her exculpatory statement, without expressing an opinion on the merits of the case.

What did the court decide?

The applicant Prem Sagar Yadav was released on bail upon executing a personal bond and furnishing two sureties by undertaking not to tamper with evidence, threaten witnesses, or commit similar offence

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

¶1

Court No. - 64

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 48276 of 2018

¶3

Applicant :- Prem Sagar Yadav Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Mohd. Saleem Khan Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble J.J. Munir,J.

¶5

In compliance with the order of this Court dated 18.12.2018 the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ghaziabad has forwarded a report about the medically estimated age of the prosecutrix received from C.M.O., Ghaziabad in a sealed cover. The sealed cover is directed to be opened in Court. The CMO's report and all papers accompanying it are exhibited and made part of the record.

¶6

This is an application for bail on behalf of the applicant, Prem Sagar Yadav in connection with Case Crime No. 742 of 2018, under Sections 376 IPC and Section 3/4 POCSO Act, P.S. Khoda, District Ghaziabad.

¶7

Heard Sri Mohd. Saleem Khan, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Akhilesh Kumar Mishra, learned A.G.A. along with Sri Raj Kumar Yadav appearing for the State.

¶8

The submission of the learned counsel for the applicant is that going by the medico legal report of the Chief Medical Officer and his Board of Doctors dated 31.12.2018, based on an ossification test and a dental evaluation report, the prosecutrix has been opined to be aged about 18 years. Learned counsel submits that going by the aforesaid medically estimated age, the prosecutrix is clearly a major and the provisions of the POCSO Act would not be attracted. Learned counsel has drawn the attention of the Court to the statement of the prosecutrix recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. which shows that she went along with the applicant of her free will. She has categorically

¶9

denied the allegation of rape and said that the allegation has come at the instance of her brother, the first informant, who was averse to her relationship with the applicant. She has further stated that the prosecutrix and the applicant wish to marry. She has at the tail end of her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. said that she does not want to prosecute the applicant. The submission of the learned counsel for the applicant is that going by the aforesaid facts and evidence, no case for the prosecution is made out.

¶10

Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail.

¶11

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 clearly a major and her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. is exculpatory, but without expressing any opinion on merits, this Court, finds it to be a fit case for bail.

¶12

The bail application, accordingly, stands allowed .

¶13

Let the applicant Prem Sagar Yadav involved in Case Crime No. 742 of 2018, under Sections 376 IPC and Section 3/4 POCSO Act, P.S. Khoda, District Ghaziabad 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:

¶14

i) The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence.

¶15

ii) The applicant shall not threaten or harass the prosecution witnesses.

¶16

iii) The applicant shall appear on the date fixed by the trial

¶17

court.

¶18

iv) The applicant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which the applicant is accused, or suspected of the commission.

¶19

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.

¶20

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.

¶21

Order Date :- 9.1.2019 BKM/-

Prem Sagar Yadav v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prem Sagar Yadav 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

Chhote Lal Vs State of U.P.

Rahul Vs State of U.P.

Pappu Vs State of U.P.

Harish Kumar Alias Babloo Vs State of U.P.

Avnish @ Bhauan Vs State of U.P.

Raju Kushwaha Vs State of U.P.