Sushil v. State of U.P.
Case brief
What is this about?
Single Judge Court allowed bail to the applicant Sushil in a case involving offences under IPC and POCSO Act, noting the lack of evidence regarding forcible rape and delay in FIR filing.
What did the court decide?
Release of applicant Sushil on bail by furnishing a personal bond and two sureties in like amount.
What the court decided
Court No. - 68
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 7568 of 2019
Applicant :- Sushil Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Sumit Kumar Srivastava,Dinesh Kumar Pandey,Manu Sharma Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Gautam Chowdhary,J.
Heard Sri Sumit Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicant, learned counsel for the State and perused the material on record.
This bail application under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the applicant Sushil , seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No. 837 of 2018, under Sections 363, 366,376 IPC and section 3/4 POCSO Act, registered at P.S.- Kotwali, Districtmaharajganj.
Learned counsel for the applicant argued that the applicant has wrongly been implicated in the present case. Next argued that FIR of the present case has been lodged after eight days of the incident without having any plausible explanation. The police had recovered the prosecutrix along with the applicant on 29.12.2018 and at parcha no. Ist it has been stated that both the applicant and prosecutrix were in love with each other and with her own consent they fled away from the house. As per the medical report dated 29.12.2018 no sign of forcibly rape has been found and also as per the medical examination conducted by the C.M.O. Maharajganj, the age of the victim is 18 years. Lastly argued that applicant is in jail since 29.12.2018 having no criminal history, therefore, he may be released on bail.
Issues for consideration
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the applicant Sushil may be released on bail in connection with offences under Sections 363, 366, 376 IPC and POCSO Act.
Whether the delay in lodging the FIR and medical evidence suggest foul play in the case.
What conditions should be imposed on the release of the applicant on bail to prevent misuse of liberty.
Parties & counsel
- applicant
Sushil
- respondent
State of U.P.
Coram
Gautam Chowdhary
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
- Court
- Allahabad HC
- Decided on
- · March
- Registered
- Case no.
- BAIL/7568/2019
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court