Dismissed

Sarvesh Mishra v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC14 Dec 2020BAIL/31879/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this bail application under Sections 377, 511 IPC and 4/18 POCSO, the High Court rejected the request for bail. The court found no good ground to release the applicant despite submissions regarding innocence and early trial possibility, directing the trial court to expedite proceedings under Section 309 Cr.P.C.

What did the court decide?

The bail application was rejected; the trial court directed to expedite trial under Section 309 Cr.P.C.

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

¶1

Court No. - 78

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 31879 of 2020

¶3

Applicant :- Sarvesh Mishra Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Balram Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Rajiv Joshi,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Balram Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶6

This instant bail application has been filed for releasing the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 131 of 2018, under Sections 377, 511 IPC and 4/18 POCSO Act, P.S. Baradari, District Bareilly, during pendency of trial.

¶7

It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant the applicant is innocent and he has falsely been implicated in the present case. As per the first information report, the applicant being a watchman tried to molest the victim, who is aged about 14 years in school campus. It is next submitted that the victimFaizan in his statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C has denied the incident, but his father supported the allegation made in the first information report. It is next submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that the trial is in progress and there is possibility of early decision. It is lastly submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that applicant is in jail since 06.02.2018, 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.

¶8

On the other hand, learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that it is a clear case of unnatural sex committed by the applicant, the trial is on the verge of conclusion, and there is no justification for allowing the present bail application at this stage.

¶9

Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case and considering the submission advanced, I find no good ground for grant of bail to the applicant-Sarvesh Mishra, involved in Case Crime No. 131 of 2018, under Sections 377, 511 IPC and 4/18 POCSO Act, P.S. Baradari, District Bareilly.

¶10

Therefore, the bail application of the applicant stands rejected.

¶11

However, the trial court is directed to expedite the trial of the aforesaid case and conclude the same strictly in accordance with law with the provisions contained in Section 309 Cr.P.C. as expeditiously as possible, if there is no legal impediment.

¶12

Order Date :- 14.12.2020 Noman

Sarvesh Mishra v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sarvesh Mishra 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

Lalaram Vs State of U.P.

Sonu Vs State of U.P.

Somveer Vs State of U.P.

Maboob Hussain @ Munna Vs State of U.P.

Akhilesh Ram and Another Vs State of U.P.

Akash Gupta Vs State of U.P.