Allowed

Shantiswaroop v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC5 Jul 2022BAIL/11543/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a bail application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. in a POCSO case, the Court allowed the applicant to be released on bail, finding merit in the submission that false complaints and allegations were made, without making observations on the merits of the case. Bailee was ordered to furnish a bond and sureties.

What did the court decide?

The applicant was enlarged on bail on furnishing a personal bond with two sureties and imposing conditions to prevent tampering with evidence.

Shantiswaroop Vs State of U.P. and Another — Cheating and Forgery | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 70

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 11543 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Shantiswaroop Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Anupam Laloriya Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Ravi Shankar Tripathi

¶4

Hon'ble Ajay Bhanot,J.

¶5

Shri Paritosh Kumar Malviya, learned AGA for the State contends that the police authorities in compliance of the directions issued by this Court in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 46998 of 2020 (Junaid Vs State of U.P. and another) reported at 2021 (6) ADJ 511 and with a view to implement the provisions of POCSO Act, 2012 read with POCSO Rules, 2020, have served the bail application upon the informant/victim as well as upon the CWC. Shri Ravi Shankar Tripathi, learned counsel has entered appearance on behalf of the informant.

¶6

By means of this bail application the applicant has prayed to be enlarged on bail in Case Crime No. 278 of 2021 at Police Station Bilsi District Budaun under Sections 323, 376, 506 342 IPC and Section 3/4 of POCSO Act. The applicant is in jail since 12.09.2021.

¶7

The bail application of the applicant was rejected by learned Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge (POCSO Act), Budaun on 12.11.2021.

¶8

Shri Anupam Laloriya, learned counsel for the applicant

¶9

contends that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the instant case. The F.I.R. arises out of a petty neighbourhood dispute. The F.I.R incorrectly depicts the age of the victim as 16 years. The victim is infact a major. Medical examination to determine the correct age of the victim as per the established medical protocol by eminent doctors from a reputed institution was not got done by the prosecution as it would falsify the prosecution case. The F.I.R. as well as the statement of the informant and the victim under Section 161 Cr.P.C. do not make any allegation of rape against the applicant. The applicant is only accused of molestation. False and aggravated version of the incident was given by the victim in her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. The victim alleged being raped by the applicant for the first time in the said statement. The statement was made almost 8-9 days after the incident. Delay in recording the statement in the facts of this case is fatal to the prosecution case . The said statement is an afterthought. The medical evidence does not corroborate allegation of rape or forceful assault. False allegations under the POCSO Act have been made only to ensure the indefinite imprisonment of the applicant. Learned counsel for the applicant contends that the applicant does not have any criminal history apart from the instant case.

¶10

Shri Paritosh Kumar Malviya, learned AGA for the State and Shri Ravi Shankar Tripathi, learned counsel

¶11

for the informant could not satisfactorily dispute the aforesaid submissions from the record. Learned AGA does not dispute the fact that the applicant does not have any criminal history apart from this case.

¶12

I see merit in the submissions of learned counsel for the applicant and accordingly hold that the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail.

¶13

In the light of the preceding discussion and without making any observations on the merits of the case, the bail application is allowed.

¶14

Let the applicant- Shantiswaroop be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number, on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court below. The following conditions be imposed in the interest of justice:-

¶15

(i) The applicant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.

¶16

(ii) The applicant will not influence any witness.

¶17

(iii) The applicant will appear before the trial court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted.

¶18

(iv) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶19

In case of breach of any of the above condition, the prosecution shall be at liberty to move bail cancellation application before this Court.

¶20

Order Date :- 5.7.2022 Dhananjai

¶21

Digitally signed by DHANANJAI Date: 2022.07.06 17:22:38 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Shantiswaroop v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shantiswaroop 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Seema Vs State of U.P.

Arvind Yadav Vs State of U.P.

Surendra Vs State of U.P. Thr Pri. Sec. Home Govt. of U.P.

Pradeep Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Virendra Kumar Patel Vs State of U.P.

Rajesh Kumar Vs State of U.P. and Another