Ankul v. State of U.P. and Anr.
Case brief
What is this about?
In an application for bail under Section 3(1) CrPC in a POCSO case involving rape, the High Court considers contradictions in the victim's statements and lack of FSL evidence.
What did the court decide?
Application for bail allowed; applicant enlarged on bail on personal bond and two sureties subject to specified conditions.
What the court decided
Court No. - 13
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 9475 of 2020
Applicant :- Ankul Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Anr. Counsel for Applicant :- Vinay Kumar,Aman Kumar Shrivastav,Dharm Trivedi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Dr. Shailendra Sharma,Shitesh Jha
Hon'ble Shamim Ahmed,J.
List revised. None appears on behalf of opposite party No. 2, though on her behalf vakalatnama has been filed Shri Shitesh Jha, Advocate, which is on the record. It appears that neither the opposite party No. 2 nor her counsel are interested to contest the case, therefore, this Court has no option but to proceed with the matter for final hearing.
Counter affidavit on behalf of State and in reply thereto rejoinder affidavit on behalf of applicant are on the record.
Heard Shri Aman Kumar Shrivastav, the learned counsel for the applicant, Shri Aniruddha Singh, the learned A.G.A.-I for the State and perused the record.
The applicant, Ankul, has moved the present bail application seeking bail in Case Crime No. 28 of 2020, under Section 376D I.P.C. read with Section 3/4 of Protection of Children From Sexual Offences Act, Police Station Neemgaon, District Kheri.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant has falsely been implicated in the present case due to village rivalry and partibandi. No such incident, as alleged by the prosecution, took place. The entire story narrated in the F.I.R. has been made with intention to defame the image of applicant and his entire family in the society.
Issues for consideration
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the applicant is entitled to bail considering the contradictions between the initial and later statements of the victim and lack of evidence in the FSL report.
Whether the delay in lodging the FIR and the victim's medical report weaken the prosecution case against the applicant.
Parties & counsel
- applicant
Ankul
- respondent
State Of U.P.
Coram
Shamim Ahmed
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
- Court
- Allahabad HC
- Decided on
- · August
- Registered
- Case no.
- /9475/2020
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court