Single judge rejected bail application of Umashanker charged with offences under IPC and POCSO Act. Court found no sufficient grounds for bail despite applicant's claims of innocence and victim's age dispute.
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. - 7003 of 2021
Applicant :- Umashanker Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Arvind Kumar,Sandeep Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Anurag Yadav
Hon'ble Deepak Verma,J.
Sri Anurag Yadav, learned counsel for the informant has filed counter affidavit, which is taken on record.
Counsel for the applicant does not wish to file rejoinder affidavit in response to counter affidavit.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned counsel for informant, learned A.G.A. on behalf of State and perused the 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.411 of 2019, under Sections 363, 376 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 POCSO Act, P.S. Doghat, District Baghpat, during pendency of the trial.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the present case; the victim on her own sweet will ran away with the applicant; there is contradiction in her statement recorded under Sections 161 Cr.P.C. and 164 Cr.P.C.; the victim is more than 16 years old; the applicant is not a previous convict and is languishing in jail since 08.03.2020.
On the other hand, learned A.G.A. and counsel for the informant vehemently opposed the bail prayer of the applicant contending that victim is below 15 years and statement recorded under Sections 161 Cr.P.C. and 164 Cr.P.C. are corroborating each other; medical report as well as F.I.R. version are supporting to the alleged crime, hence the applicant is not entitled for bail.
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 in the aforesaid case.
The bail application is, accordingly, rejected .
However, the trial court is directed to decide the trial of the case in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, without granting any unnecessary or long adjournments to either of the parties, preferably, within a period of six months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order, if there is no other legal impediment.
Order Date :- 15.12.2021 Meenu
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the applicant is entitled to bail in a case involving offences under Sections 363, 376 IPC and Sections 3/4 of POCSO Act.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Umashanker
State of U.P.
Deepak Verma
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
