Allowed

Mohit v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC26 Jul 2022BAIL/15733/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Single Judge allowed the bail application filed by Mohit accused under IPC and POCSO charges. The court held that material contradictions in the victim's statements and assertions of consent indicated false implication, granting bail on personal bond and sureties without pre-judging the case merits.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail on furnishing personal bond and two sureties on specified conditions.

Mohit Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 70

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 15733 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Mohit Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Vinod Kumar Tirpathi,Manoj Kumar Tripathi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Anil Kumar Jaiswal,Ashok 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.936 of 2021 at Police Station-Surajpur, DistrictG.B.Nagar under Sections 363, 366, 376 IPC and Section 5(2)(va) of the SC/ST Act and under Section 3/4 of the POCSO Act. The applicant is in jail since 25.12.2021.

¶6

The bail application of the applicant was rejected by learned Additional District and Sessions Judge/learned Special Judge POCSO (Ist), Child Court, Gautam Buddh Nagar on 07.03.2022.

¶7

Shri Vinod Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel assisted by Shri Amit Kumar, 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 as 15 years in the F.I.R. only to implicate the applicant under the stringent provisions of the POCSO Act and cause his indefinite imprisonment. The victim is in fact a major. Medical examination to determine the

¶8

correct age of the victim as per the established medical protocol by eminent doctors from a reputed institution was not got done as it would falsify the prosecution case. The applicant and the victim were intimate. Their consensual relationship was opposed by the family members of the victim. The F.I.R. is the result of such opposition. The victim travelled with the applicant to Baghpat. She was present at various public places. However, she never resisted the applicant nor raised an alarm. The victim was a consenting party. The victim in her statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. has categorically asserted that the applicant did not act inappropriately with her nor did he rape her. However, an exaggerated and false version of the incident has been stated by the victim in her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. at the behest of her parents only to deflect attention from her own conduct and to save the failing prosecution case. The material contradictions in the F.I.R., statements of the victim under Section 161 Cr.P.C. as well as under Section 164 Cr.P.C. discredit the prosecution case. Learned counsel for the applicant contends that the applicant does not have any criminal history apart from the instant case.

¶9

Learned A.G.A. could not satisfactorily dispute the

¶10

aforesaid submissions.

¶11

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.

¶12

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

¶13

Let the applicant-Mohit 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

¶18

case of breach of any of the above condition, the State may move an application for cancellation of bail application.

¶19

Order Date :- 26.7.2022 Ashish Tripathi

¶20

Digitally signed by ASHISH NAYAN TRIPATHI Date: 2022.07.27 09:45:24 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Mohit v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohit 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

Pankaj Maurya 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