This Court allowed bail to the applicant in a POCSO case citing Article 21 and a Supreme Court precedent, imposing specific conditions regarding bond, sureties, and conduct while explicitly avoiding a decision on the merits of the charges.
Applicant released on bail by furnishing a personal bond and two sureties satisfying court conditions.
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. - 78
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 21780 of 2020
Applicant :- Rajesh Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Bashir Ahmad Khan,Om Narayan Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Rajiv Joshi,J.
Heard Sri Om Narayan Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
This instant bail application has been filed for releasing the applicant on bail in Case No. 127 of 2017, under Section 3/4 POCSO Act, P.S. Kant, District Shahjahanpur, during pendency of trial.
It is contended by learned counsel for the applicant that he has falsely been implicated in the present case. It is next contended that earlier the applicant was granted bail vide order dated 4.10.2017 by A.C.J.M., Shahjahanpur. Subsequently, he was summoned under Section 7/8 of POCSO Act on a complaint filed by the informant. It is next contended by learned counsel for the applicant that as per Class VIII marksheet, date of birth of the victim is 15.8.1999, and she is major. In the statement of the victim recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., she has stated that the applicant raped her, but the medical report shows that there is no pain, and internal or external injury, and as per the doctor, opinion about rape cannot be given. It is next contended by learned counsel for the applicant that offence under Section 3/4 of POCSO Act is not attracted in the present case. It has been further submitted that applicant is in jail since 03.02.2020 having no other previous criminal history to his credit and that in the wake of heavy pendency of cases in the Court, there is no likelihood of any early conclusion of trial and thus, the applicant is entitled for indulgence.
Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the aforesaid facts as argued by the learned counsel for the applicant.
Having considered the material on record, larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India and the dictum of Apex Court in the case of Dataram Singh Vs. State of U.P. and another , reported in (2018) 3 SCC 22 and without expressing
any opinion on the merits of the case, let the applicant- Rajesh involved in the aforesaid crime be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions that :-
In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.
Order Date :- 17.12.2020 Noman
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the applicant should be released on bail in a POCSO case without expressing an opinion on the merits given pendency.
Whether conditions can be imposed on bail to prevent tampering and ensure cooperation during trial.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Dataram Singh vs. State of U.P. and anotherReferred¶9
(2018) 3 SCC 22 · Who else cites this
3 provisions across 3 enactments
Rajesh
State of U.P.
Rajiv Joshi
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
Rajiv Joshi
Parties & counsel
