Allowed

Pankaj Maurya v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC26 Jul 2022BAIL/11970/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Application for bail rejected below challenged. Court allowed bail after finding merit in counsel's arguments regarding false implication, victim's age, and contradictions in prosecution case. Bond with sureties and conditions imposed.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail on furnishing personal bond and two sureties subject to specific conditions preventing tampering, influencing witnesses, and-making inducements.

Pankaj Maurya Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 70

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 11970 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Pankaj Maurya Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Manoj Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Vivek Kumar Singh

¶4

Hon'ble Ajay Bhanot,J.

¶5

By means of this bail application the applicant has prayed to be enlarged on bail in Case Crime No.227 of 2021 at Police Station-Chandwak, District-Jaunpur under Section 376 IPC and Section 3(2)V of the SC/ST Act and Section 5/6 of the POCSO Act. The applicant is in jail since 05.02.2022.

¶6

The bail application of the applicant was rejected by learned Additional Sessions Judge/learned Special Judge, POCSO Act (Ananya), Jaunpur on 24.02.2022.

¶7

Shri Manoj Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the applicant contend that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the instant case. The age of the victim was falsely recorded in the F.I.R. only to implicate the applicant under the stringent provisions of the POCSO Act and cause his indefinite imprisonment. The age of the victim has also been incorrectly entered in the high school certificate as 17 years by the victim's parents to give her an unfair advantage in life. The victim is

¶8

in fact a major. The medical report drawn up to determine the age of the victim opines that she is about 18 years of age.

¶9

According to the learned counsel for the applicant, the delay of two years in lodgment of the F.I.R. in the facts of the case is fatal to the prosecution case. The F.I.R. is an offshoot of a matrimonial dispute. The victim in her statement made under Section 200 Cr.P.C. before the trial court has deposed that she got married to the applicant and had a consensual physical relationship. Material contradictions in the F.I.R. and the statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and under Section 164 Cr.P.C. discredit the prosecution case. Medical evidence to corroborate allegation of rape or forceful assault has not been produced by the prosecution case. Learned counsel for the applicant contends that the applicant does not have any criminal history apart from the instant case.

¶10

Learned A.G.A. as well as Shri Vivek Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the informant could not satisfactorily dispute the aforesaid submissions. I see merit in the submissions of the learned counsel for the applicant and hold that the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail.

¶11

In the light of the preceding discussion and without

¶12

making any observations on the merits of the case, the bail application is allowed.

¶13

Let the applicant-Pankaj Maurya 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 concerned subject to following conditions.

¶14

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

¶15

(ii) The applicant will not influence any witness. (iii) The applicant will appear before the trial court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted.

¶16

(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.

¶17

In case any averment in the bail application or submission made during the argument is false or in case of breach of any of the above condition, the State may move an application for cancellation of bail application.

¶18

Order Date :- 26.7.2022 Ashish Tripathi

¶19

Digitally signed by ASHISH NAYAN TRIPATHI Date: 2022.07.28 10:03:56 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Pankaj Maurya v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pankaj Maurya 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vikas Rajbhar Vs State of U.P. and Another

Prem Kumar Gupta Vs State of U.P.

Mansingh Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Mohit Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Sandesh Prajapati Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Ankur Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others