Dismissed

Zeeshan v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC20 Aug 2020BAIL/8067/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court in chamber, after an urgency hearing, heard bail application No. 8067 of 2020 relating to crime of rape and POCSO. The applicant contended false implication due to lack of medical support. The Court found no ground for bail and rejected the application, directing expedited trial.

What did the court decide?

Bail application rejected; trial court directed to conclude trial within one year.

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

¶1

In Chamber

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 8067 of 2020

¶3

Applicant :- Zeeshan Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Sadaful Islam Jafri,Nazrul Islam Jafri(Senior Adv.) Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Shiv Prakash

¶4

Hon'ble Ramesh Sinha,J.

¶5

As per the Office report dated 19.8.2020, an urgency application has been moved on behalf of the applicant in the present bail application through e. mail. The said urgency application has been placed before this Court along with the record.

¶6

Considering the grounds taken in the urgency application by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant, who is languishing in jail, is a boy aged about 20 years, the urgency application is allowed. The Court thus proceeds to hear the matter.

¶7

Heard Sri N.I. Jafri, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri S.I. Jafri, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Rajesh Mishra, learned A.G.A. for the State through Video Conferencing and perused the record. Sri Shiv Prakash, learned counsel for the complainant has not responded to the link sent to him for appearing in the present matter.

¶8

It has been contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that though the victim, who is a minor girl aged about 15 years in her statement recorded under section 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. has allegation of rape against the applicant but the said allegation does not find support by her medical examination report. The applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case by the brother of the victim. The applicant is in jail since 26.9.2019.

¶9

Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that the victim as per the F.I.R. as well as her Ossification test is minor aged about 15 years and she in her statements recorded under sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. has categorically stated that it was the applicant, who committed rape on her.

¶10

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 Zeeshan involved in Case Crime No. 558 of 2019 under sections 452, 363, 376, 506 I.P.C., 3/4 POCSO Act and 67-A, 67-B I.T. Act, police station Mundapandey, District Moradabad.

¶11

Accordingly, the bail application is rejected .

¶12

The trial court is directed to expedite the trial of the present case and conclude the same expeditiously preferably within a period of one year from the date of production of a copy of this order, if there is no legal impediment.

¶13

The party shall file computer generated copy of order downloaded from

¶14

the official website of High Court Allahabad, self attested by it alongwith a self attested identity proof of the said person(s) (preferably Aadhar Card) mentioning the mobile number(s) to which the said Aadhar Card is linked.

¶15

The concerned Court/Authority/Official shall verify the authenticity of the computerized copy of the order from the official website of High Court Allahabad and shall make a declaration of such verification in writing.

¶16

Order Date :- 20.8.2020 Shiraz

Zeeshan v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Zeeshan 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

Amar Singh Vs State of U.P.

Atarkali Vs State of U.P.

Devendra and Another Vs State of U.P.

Manoj Yadav Vs State of U.P.

Hasan @ Bhura Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ramkumar Vs State of U.P.