The Single Judge rejected the bail application of Vinod, charged under Section 354 IPC and POCSO Act, 2012, considering the victim's young age and the gravity of the offence despite arguments regarding witness contradictions and the applicant's physical disability.
Bail application rejected; applicant not enlarged.
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. - 64
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 3178 of 2020
Applicant :- Vinod Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Raghav Ram Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Raj Beer Singh,J.
Counter affidavit filed by learned A.G.A., is taken on record.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
The present bail application has been filed by the applicant in case crime No. 155 of 2019, under Sections 354(ka) IPC and Section 7/8 POCSO Act, 2012, P.S. Sultanpur Ghosh, District Fatehpur with the prayer to enlarge him on bail.
It has been argued by the learned counsel for applicant that applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. There is contradiction in the statements of witnesses recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C and that no such incident has taken place. The alleged incident has been shown of 4:00 pm at road side and thus, it is not probable that such an incident might have committed by applicant. It was further stated that applicant is handicapped by one leg, whereas witnesses have alleged that after incident the applicant has ran away from the spot. In her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C, victim girl has merely alleged that her underwear was taken off by the applicant and that no other act was attributed to the applicant. It has been argued that applicant has been falsely implicated on account of money dispute with complainant. It was further submitted that applicant is languishing in jail since 14.11.2019, having no criminal history and that in case he is released on bail, he will
not misuse the liberty of bail and cooperate in the trial.
Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail and argued that victim girl is merely aged about 6 years and that in her statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. she has made clear allegations that she was molested by applicant. Though in her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C., she has merely stated that her underwear was taken off by the applicant, however, this fact has to be taken into consideration that victim is merely aged about 6 years.
Considering the submissions of learned counsel for the parties, nature of allegations, age of victim, gravity of offence and all attending facts and circumstances of case, the Court is of the opinion that it is not a fit case for bail. Hence, the bail application of applicant Vinod is hereby rejected .
Order Date :- 6.3.2020 A. Tripathi
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the applicant is entitled to bail given the age of the victim and the gravity of the offences under POCSO and IPC.
Whether contradictions in witness statements and the applicant's alleged disability invalidate the merits of the charge.
Whether the nature of allegations warrants refusal of bail due to the risk of further offence.
4 provisions across 3 enactments
Vinod
State of U.P.
Raj Beer Singh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
