Dismissed

Shani Alias Sannu v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC1 Dec 2020BAIL/7156/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an application for bail in a case involving charges under Sections 376 IPC and Sections 5/6 POCSO Act, the High Court rejected the prayer, finding no fit case for bail given the victim's corroboration and medical report, while directing the trial court to expedite proceedings.

What did the court decide?

Bail prayer refused; bail application rejected. Trial court directed to expedite case completion within one year.

Shani Alias Sannu Vs State of U.P. and Another — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Allahabad HC (2020)

¶1

Court No. - 36

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 7156 of 2020

¶3

Applicant :- Shani Alias Sannu Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Anil Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Ali Zamin,J.

¶5

Despite service of notice on opposite party no. 2, no one appears on behalf of opposite party no. 2.

¶6

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

¶7

This bail application has been moved on behalf of applicant Shani Alias Sannu, who is involved in Case Crime No. 208 of 2019, under Sections 376, I.P.C. & Section 5/6 POCSO Act, 2012, Police Station Bewar, District Mainpuri.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that according to the FIR on 27th May, 2019 at about 5.30 p.m. in the evening victim aged about 6 years went in the field to graze the goats where applicant by catching committed misdeed with her. He submits that in medical report, no injury has been found on the body of the victim. In statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C., victim has stated that by putting off her clothes applicant committed bad act with her. In statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C., victim has stated that applicant committed dirty act with her. As per Paper No. 39, opinion has been given that there is evidence of sexual penetrative assault. There is no possibility of the applicant of fleeing away from the judicial process or tampering with the witnesses and, in case, the applicant is enlarged on bail, the applicant shall not misuse the liberty of bail. It is next contended that the applicant is languishing in jail since 28.05.2019.

¶9

Per contra, learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and submits that the victim has supported the prosecution case through her statements recorded under Sections 161 & 164 Cr.P.C. and medical report also corroborates the prosecution version, therefore, he is not entitled for bail.

¶10

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case as well as submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties, statement of the victim as well as medical report and also perusing the material on record, without expressing any opinion on merit of the case, I do not find a fit case for bail.

¶11

Consequently, the prayer for bail of the applicant Shani Alias Sannu is hereby refused and the bail application is rejected.

¶12

However, trial court is directed to expedite this case in accordance with law without granting unnecessary adjournments to either of the parties as expeditiously as possible within a year.

¶13

Order Date :- 1.12.2020 Israr

Shani Alias Sannu v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shani Alias Sannu v. State of U.P. and Another

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

Kismat Ali Vs State of U.P. and Another

Sachin Vs State of U.P.and Another

Hariom Mishra Vs State of U.P. and Another

Atul Patel Vs State of U.P. and Another

Bhupendra @ Lauhari Vs State of U.P.

Shubham @ Abhishek Chaudhray Vs State of U.P.