Allowed

Pinki @ Pankaj v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC24 Aug 2021CRLA/1282/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The single judge allowed the criminal appeal against the order rejecting bail. Noting that the appellant is legally wedded to the prosecutrix and her age assessments were contested, the court found no convincing justification for denying bail and set aside the impugned order, granting release on bond.

What did the court decide?

The impugned bail rejection order dated 19.02.2021 was set aside; the appellant was released on bail subject to furnishing a personal bond and two sureties and cooperating in the trial.

Pinki @ Pankaj Vs State of U.P. and Another — Caste Atrocities | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 50

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 1282 of 2021

¶3

Appellant :- Pinki @ Pankaj Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- Lalit Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Arvind Kumar Mishra-I,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State and perused the record.

¶6

This Criminal appeal under Section 14-A(2) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 has been preferred by the appellant with the prayer to set aside the order dated 19.02.2021 passed by Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge POCSO Act court no.27 Agra in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.1134 of 2021 arising out of Case Crime no.181 of 2015, under Sections 363, 366, 376 IPC and 7/8 POCSO Act and under Section 3(2) (5) SC./ST Act, P.S. Malpura, District Agra.

¶7

Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the appellant is an innocent person and has been falsely implicated in the present case. It has been claimed that the incident took place in the year 2015 and at that point of time, medical examination of the victim was conducted and ossification test too was also done wherein age of the prosecutrix was assessed to be about 17 years, but this version is not correct, infact, the prosecutrix was major on the date of occurrence and she is legally wedded wife of the appellant and two issues have been born out of their wedlock. The circumstances itself indicate that appellant has not violated any law as such and the present FIR is nothing but outcome of malice in the mind of father of the victim. So far as ossification of the victim is concerned, her age has been assessed to be about 17 years and two years margin if added to it, it would cross 19 years. Appellant promises that he will cooperate with the trial. The appellant is languishing in jail since 11.02.2021.

¶8

Learned Additional Government Advocate has though opposed the bail of the appellant but could not dispute the aforesaid fact.

¶9

I have considered the rival submissions so made and having gone through the entire record including the order by which, bail application of the appellant-applicant has been rejected, impugned herein this appeal.

¶10

Nothing convincing has been argued on behalf of the complainant/ State so as to justify and sustain the order passed by the court below rejecting the bail application of the appellant.

¶11

Thus, in view of the above and having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view the evidence, complicity of accused, I am of the view that the appellant has made out a case for bail.

¶12

Accordingly, this appeal is allowed and the impugned order dated 19.02.2021 rejecting the bail of the appellant is set aside.

¶13

Let the accused-appellant, namely, Pinki @ Pankaj involved in the aforesaid crime be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of Court concerned subject to the condition that applicant shall cooperate in the trial and will not jump the bail.

¶14

The concerned Court/ Authority/ Official is further directed to 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.

¶15

Order Date :- 24.8.2021 Raj

Pinki @ Pankaj v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pinki @ Pankaj 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Deviram Vs State of U.P. and Another

Noor Ahmad and 5 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Azmat Ali Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Vasim Vs State of Up and Another

Mohd. Rashid and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Dharamvir and 2 Others Vs State of U.P.