Dismissed

Shailendra Chauhan v. State of U.P.and 3 Others

Allahabad HC2 Aug 2022BAIL/10176/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Two bail applications of the same applicant arising from charges of outraging the modesty of a 12-year-old girl. The court rejected bail after considering statutory video footage, victim statements, and the nature of allegations, without expressing an opinion on the merits of the underlying charge.

What did the court decide?

Bail applications rejected; applicant denied liberty.

Shailendra Chauhan Vs State of U.P.and 3… — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 71

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 10176 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Shailendra Chauhan Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Rajiv Kumar Mishra,Rajiv Lochan Shukla,Shiv Kant Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

WITH

¶5

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 3430 of 2022

¶6

Applicant :- Shailendra Chauhan Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 2 Other Counsel for Applicant :- Udai Shankar Chauhan,Rajiv Lochan Shukla Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶7

Hon'ble Subhash Chandra Sharma,J.

¶8

Supplementary affidavit filed by learned counsel for the applicant, which is taken on record.

¶9

With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, both the bail applications arising from the same crime number are being heard and decided with a common order.

¶10

Heard learned counsel for applicant, learned AGA for the State and perused the record.

¶11

It is submitted that applicant has been falsely implicated in this case. Allegedly the hospital of the applicant is situated in front of the house of the informant where the applicant called the victim aged about 12 years the daughter of the informant on the pretext of teaching and giving book. He outraged her modesty by touching her and after thrusting hand in her panties entered his finger into her private part.

¶12

It is next submitted that as per the FIR, no case of rape is made out against the applicant. FIR was lodged by mother of the victim, who has not mentioned that the applicant entered his finger in the private part of the victim, as the FIR was lodged under Section 354 (K) IPC and Section 7/8 POCSO Act. During the course of investigation, statement of the victim was recorded under section 161 and 164 Cr.P.C., in which no allegation of rape had been made by her and also not stated that the applicant entered his hand into her panty.

¶13

It is further submitted that the version of rape was brought on the basis of two parts of the video footage. In first part of video

¶14

footage, it appeared that the applicant checked up her B.P. and during check up, he opened her cloth and touched her breast, then the victim refused for medical check up and in the second part of the video footage, when the victim refused to check up, the applicant opened the button of her pant and thrusted his hand, touched and entered finger in her private part. The Video footage was not enclosed by the investigating officer and the applicant was also not identified in the video footage.

¶15

It is further submitted that the statement of Suraj Rai was recorded who was working as servant in the aforesaid hospital from where he was expelled so he was annoyed. It is further submitted that the statement of P.W. 1 and P.W. 2 have already been recorded by the learned trial court in which the statement of P.W. 2 the victim has not been supported by her mother. There is no criminal antecedent against the applicant and he is in jail since 13.10.2021, therefore, requested for bail. In case he released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and will co-operate in trial.

¶16

Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail and urged that in this case the victim was aged about 12 years and the applicant outraged her modesty and also entered the finger into her private part. The incident was narrated by the victim to her mother and thereafter, she made statement in this regard before the investigating officer and the same was also narrated before the Magistrate under Section 164 Cr.P.C. She has also supported the version of the FIR before the learned trial court as P.W. 2. In spite of this, the whole incident was also recorded in the Video Footage which was made part of the case diary by the Investigating Officer and the identity of the applicant was got established, therefore, the applicant is not entitled for bail .

¶17

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, nature of allegations, evidence on record and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court is of the view that the applicant is not entitled for bail.

¶18

Both the bail applications of the applicant are, accordingly, rejected .

¶19

Order Date :- 2.8.2022 v.k.updh.

¶20

Digitally signed by VINOD KUMAR UPADHYAY Date: 2022.08.18 11:36:33 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Shailendra Chauhan v. State of U.P.and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shailendra Chauhan v. State of U.P.and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Umesh Vs State of U.P. and Another

Om Prakash Singh Alias Akali Vs State of U.P.

Irsad Vs State of U.P and Another

Nayab Vs State of U.P.

Deepu @ Ddepak Vs State of U.P.

Diwakar Yadav Vs State of U.P.