Allowed

Anshul v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC25 Jan 2021BAIL/3980/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 3980 of 2021, the Court granted bail to Anshul accused under Sections 363, 366, 376D IPC and POCSO Act. The Court held the applicant entitled to bail despite severe charges, noting the victim did not support the prosecution case in trial.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail by executing personal bond and furnishing two sureties subject to conditions of appearance and non-tampering.

Anshul Vs State of U.P. — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 90

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 3980 of 2021

¶3

Applicant :- Anshul Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Yogesh Kumar Srivastava,Noor Muhammad Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Ajit Singh,J.

¶5

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

¶6

By means of this application, the applicant who is involved in Case Crime No. 79 of 2019, under Sections 363, 366, 376D I.P.C. and Section 5/6 Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012, P.S. Kishni, district-Mainpuri, is seeking enlargement on bail during the trial.

¶7

The first information report was lodged by the complainant about enticement of his daughter by co-accused Sunil. It was also alleged that co-accused Sunil had sold the alleged victim to the present accused.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant was not named in the first information report. His name as an accused in the present case surfaced for the first time during investigation. He next submits that the applicant is absolutely innocent and his implication in the present case is based only due to the fact that he happens to be friend of co-accused Sunil. Further submission is that the victim as per medical opinion is aged about seventeen years. The law is settled that the margin of error in ascertaining the age by radiological examination is two years on either side and hence the possibility of the prosecutrix being major cannot be ruled out. He also submits that the alleged victim has not supported the prosecution case during her examination in trial. She has specifically stated that she was carried away by the co-accused Sunil and sold to the present accused. In her cross-examination she has categorically stated that she had gone to her friend's house at Firozabad by bus. He lastly submits that the applicant has no criminal history and he is languishing in jail since 26.11.2020 and in case he is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate in trial.

¶9

The prayer for bail has been vehemently opposed by learned A.G.A. as

¶10

well as learned counsel for the informant but have not disputed the fact that the victim has not supported the prosecution case in her statement recorded during trial.

¶11

Keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, severity of the punishment, submissions of learned counsel for the parties, considering the law laid down in the case of Data Ram Vs. State of U.P. and others, 2018(3) SCC 22 and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this Court is of the view that the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail during the pendency of the trial.

¶12

Let the applicant, Anshul involved in the aforesaid case be released on bail on his executing a personal bond and furnishing two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to the following conditions:-

¶13

The applicant will continue to attend and co-operate in the trial pending before the court concerned on the date fixed after release.

¶14

He will not tamper with the witnesses.

¶15

He will not indulge in any illegal activities during the bail period.

¶16

It is further directed that the identity, status and residence proof of the sureties be verified by the authorities concerned before they are accepted.

¶17

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the trial court will be at liberty to cancel the bail.

¶18

The party shall file computer generated copy of such order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad, self attested by learned counsel for the applicant along with a self attested identity proof of the said persons (preferably Aadhar Card) mentioning the mobile number (s) to which the said Aadhar Card is linked before the concerned Court/Authority/Official.

¶19

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

¶20

Order Date :- 25.1.2021 Faridul

Anshul v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anshul 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

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rajnish@ Tinku Vs State of U.P. and Another

Rajhans@ Dharmi@ Arun Gwalaa@ Deepak Sharma@ Rajan@ Dharmveer Vs State of U.P.

Aadil Vs State of Up

Jasvindar Singh Vs State of U.P.

Mantosh Kumar Vs State of U.P.

Jubaier Vs State of U.P.