Allowed

Manish Chaurasiya v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC19 Feb 2020BAIL/26217/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court granted bail to the applicant in a second application involving rape charge under Section 376 IPC and POCSO Act, finding it a fit case for bail without expressing opinion on merits, citing evidence gaps and hostile witnesses.

What did the court decide?

Release on personal bond and two sureties on conditions not to tamper with evidence, intimidate witnesses, and appear in court.

Manish Chaurasiya Vs State of U.P. — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Allahabad HC (2020)

¶1

Court No. - 82

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 26217 of 2018

¶3

Applicant :- Manish Chaurasiya Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Vishnu Swaroop Srivastava,Harish Kumar Tripathi

¶4

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Bachchoo Lal,J.

¶6

This is second bail application of the applicant. The first bail application of the applicant was rejected on merits by this Court vide order dated 7.9.2015.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A and perused the record.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is languishing in jail since 12.1.2015 i.e.more than five years. During the trial the statement of the victim has been recorded as P.W. 5 and her examination in chief has been recorded in question answer. The victim in her examination in chief has not disclosed the name of the applicant and from the statement of the victim in examination in chief it has not been clearly established that the applicant has committed rape upon her. The victim in her cross examination has stated that the applicant caught hold her hand and he has not done any thing with her. It has further been submitted that P.W. 1 Smt. Saroj Devi is mother of the victim, who has supported the prosecution version in her examination in chief but in her cross examination she has stated that she had not seen the alleged incident. She has further stated that her daughter (Victim) had not told her about the alleged incident. P.W. 2 Alok Pandey, P.W. 3 Lakshman Pandey and P.W. 4 Vijay Kumar Sharma are said to be witnesses of the alleged occurrence and it is also said that the above witnesses have apprehended the applicant on spot but the above witnesses in their statements have not supported the prosecution version and they have been declared hostile. P.W. 2 Alok Pandey has clearly stated that he has not seen the alleged incident and he has not apprehended the applicant on spot. P.W. 3 Lakshman Pandey and P.W. 4 Vijay Kumar Sharma have also stated that they have not seen the alleged incident. There is no other cogent evidence against the applicant. It has further been submitted that the applicant has not committed the alleged offence. The applicant has falsely been implicated in the present case. There is no criminal history of the applicant.

¶9

Per contra, learned A.G.A opposed the prayer for bail.

¶10

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I find it a fit case for bail.

¶11

Let the applicant Manish Chaurasiya involved in Case Crime No. 0009 of 2015, under Sections 376 IPC and 3/4 POSCO Act, P.S. Belipar, District Gorakhpur 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:-

¶12

The applicant will not tamper with the evidences.

¶13

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

¶14

The applicant will appear on each and every date fixed by the trial court unless personal appearance is exempted by the court concerned.

¶15

In case of breach of any conditions mentioned above, the trial court shall be at liberty to cancel the bail of the applicant.

¶16

Order Date :- 19.2.2020/A.

Manish Chaurasiya v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manish Chaurasiya 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

Wasi Haidar Vs State of U.P. and 21 Ors.

Prem Nath Mishra and Anr. Vs State of Up and Anr.

Gulab Bind and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Smt Pooja @ Muskan and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Airunnisha Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

Ashish Gupta Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others