Court allowed bail for Sitaram in a criminal case involving enticement and offences under IPC and POCSO Act, considering the victim consenting and refusal to undergo medical test, citing Dataram Singh.
Applicant released on bail on personal bond and two local sureties subject to conditions against tampering and ensuring trial attendance.
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. - 71
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 35753 of 2021
Applicant :- Sitaram Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Rajeev Kumar Singh Parmar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Deepak Verma,J.
In spite of notice served to informant, none appears on behalf of the informant to press the case.
Heard Sri Rajeev Kumar Singh Parmar, learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material on record.
The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No. 453 of 2020, registered under Sections 363, 366, 376(2)N I.P.C. and Section 5(n), 6, 5(i), 11/6 of POCSO Act, Police Station Bhamaura, District Bareilly during pendency of the trial.
As per FIR version, informant's daughter enticed away by the applicant and his daughter carried Rs.10,000/- cash and some ornaments.
Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case due to ulterior motive. From the statement of victim recorded under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C., she is major, aged about 20 years and she left her parental home on her own sweet will and went with applicant to Allahabad where she solemnized marriage and lived as husband and wife. Victim is five months pregnant lady and want to live with applicant. It appears from the statement that victim is consenting party and victim refused to undergo for medical test, hence, no case is made out under the alleged sections. The applicant has no previous criminal history. There is no prospect of trial of the present case being concluded in near future due to heavy dockets. It is next submitted that there is no possibility of fleeing away of the applicant from the judicial custody 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 also contended that the applicant is languishing in jail since 06.07.2021.
Per contra, learned A.G.A. opposed the bail prayer of the applicant.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and the statement of the victim under Sections 161 Cr.P.C. and 164 Cr.P.C., medical report regarding age of the victim and evidence on record regarding complicity of the accused and the view laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Dataram Singh Vs. State of U.P. and another reported in (2018) 3 SCC 22 and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the applicant is entitled for bail. The bail application is allowed.
Let the applicant- Sitaram, who is involved in the aforesaid case crime, be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two local sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned, subject to the following conditions. Further, before issuing the release order, the sureties be verified :-
In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.
Order Date :- 10.12.2021 Nitin Verma
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the applicant is entitled to release on bail pending trial in a case involving sections 363, 366, 376(2)N IPC and POCSO Act.
Whether the applicant can furnish a personal bond and two local sureties subject to standard bail conditions.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Dataram Singh Vs. State of U.P. and anotherReferred¶11
Dataram Singh Vs. State of U.P. and another reported in (2018) 3 SCC 22 · Who else cites this
3 provisions across 3 enactments
Sitaram
State of U.P.
Deepak Verma
Nitin Verma
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
