Allowed

Shreeom v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC7 Jan 2021BAIL/46450/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a bail application under POCSO, IPC Sections 363 and 376, the High Court, alluding to a larger constitutional mandate, released the applicant on bond and sureties without expressing an opinion on the merits, stipulating standard conditions.

What did the court decide?

Bail granted on personal bond and two sureties with conditions to appear, not intimidate witnesses, and comply with procedural requirements.

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

¶1

Court No. - 84

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 46450 of 2020

¶3

Applicant :- Shreeom Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Jitendra Pal Singh Chauhan Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Dr. Yogendra Kumar Srivastava,J.

¶5

Applicant-Shreeom seeks bail in Case Crime No. 289 of 2020, under Sections 363, 376 IPC and Section 3/4 Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, Police Station Najibabad, District Bijnor.

¶6

Heard Sri J.P. Singh Chauhan, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Arvind Kumar, learned AGA appearing for the Staterespondent and perused the record.

¶7

The contention of the learned counsel for the applicant is that the First Information Report dated 4.7.2020 lodged by the father of the prosecutrix is only in respect of the prosecutrix having been taken away by the accused with no allegation with regard to rape. He has placed reliance upon the statement of the prosecutrix under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C., wherein she has stated that she had willingly gone alongwith the accused and that they had got married on 2.7.2020 at Arya Samaj Mandir.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that the Apex Court in the case of Rajak Mohd. Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh, (2018) 9 SCC 248, has held that where the prosecutrix lived with the accused and freely moved around with the accused where she came across many people at different points of time but never complained of any criminal act, the conviction of the accused under Section 363, 366, 376 I.P.C was held to be unwarranted in law. It is submitted that he has no criminal history to his credit and he is languishing in jail since 07.07.2020. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶9

Per contra, Sri Arvind Kumar, learned A.G.A. submits that as per the school leaving certificate, the age of the prosecutrix is 17 years and accordingly, the plea of marriage cannot be taken. However, he has not been able to dispute the fact that with regard to age, there can always be a margin of an year or two on either side.

¶10

Having considered the submissions of the parties noted above,

¶11

larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, let the applicant involved in the aforesaid crime be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:

¶12

The applicant will not tamper with the evidence.

¶13

The applicant will not indulge in any criminal activity.

¶14

The applicant will not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witnesses and co-operate in the trial.

¶15

The applicant will appear regularly on each and every date fixed by the trial court unless his personal appearance is exempted through counsel by the court concerned.

¶16

The party shall file computer generated copy of such order downloaded from the official website of High Court, Allahabad.

¶17

The computer generated copy of such order shall be self attested by counsel of the party concerned.

¶18

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.

¶19

In the event of breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the court below will be at liberty to proceed to cancel his bail.

¶20

Order Date :- 7.1.2021 Shalini

¶21

(Dr. Y.K.Srivastava,J.)

Shreeom v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shreeom 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

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Lalji Yadav and Another Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Smt. Sana @ Pooja and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and 9 Others

Shikha Yadav Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Smt. Reena and Another Vs Rajveer Singh and 8 Others

Ankit Rajbhar Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ankit Vs State of U.P. and Another