Allowed

Satish@ Narayan v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC12 Jul 2022BAIL/16483/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a bail application under the POCSO Act, the High Court held that the applicant was entitled to bail following counsel's submissions regarding false implication and inconsistencies in evidence, without adjudicating the merits of the case.

What did the court decide?

Release on bail by furnishing personal bond and two sureties on conditions not to tamper with evidence or influence witnesses.

Satish@ Narayan Vs State of U.P. and 3… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 70

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 16483 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Satish@ Narayan Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Nanhe Lal Tripathi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Ajay Bhanot,J.

¶5

Shri I.P. Srivastava, learned A.G.A. 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 notices of the bail application upon the the victim as well as the CWC. Form A and Form B are also available in the record.

¶6

The C.W.C., district-Lalitpur on its part has sent instructions to the Government Advocate.

¶7

By means of this bail application the applicant has prayed to be enlarged on bail in Case Crime No. 274 of 2021 at Police Station Jakhaura District Lalitpur under Sections 354, 506, 376AB IPC 5/6 POCSO Act. The applicant is in jail since 22.10.2021.

¶8

The bail application of the applicant was rejected by learned Additional Sessions Judge/ Special Judge POCSO Act, Lalitpur on 14.02.2022.

¶9

Shri Nanhe Lal Tripathi, learned counsel for the applicant contends that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the instant case. The criminal case arise out of petty neighbourhood dispute. The criminal proceeding is being leveraged in the neighbourhood dispute. The prosecution case set out in the FIR is that the victim was molested by the applicant. The victim in her statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C has also made a statement consistent with the prosecution case set out in the FIR. Aggravated and false allegations of rape were made by the victim for the first time in her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C at the behest of her parents, to save the failing prosecution case and to cause indefinite imprisonment to the applicant. The victim declined to undergo an internal medical examination. Medical report opines that no fresh marks of external injury were seen at the time of examination of the victim. Material inconsistencies in the FIR, statement of the victim under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C discredit the prosecution case. Medical evidence does not corroborate rape or forceful assault. Learned counsel for the applicant contends that the applicant does not have any criminal history apart from this case.

¶10

Shri I.P. Srivastava, learned A.G.A for the State 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.

¶11

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.

¶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-Satish@ Narayan 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:-

¶14

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

¶15

(ii) The applicant will not influence any witness.

¶16

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

¶17

(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.

¶18

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

¶19

Order Date :- 12.7.2022/Nadeem

¶20

Digitally signed by NADEEM AHMAD Date: 2022.07.13 17:02:54 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Satish@ Narayan v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Satish@ Narayan 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rahul Gupta Vs State of Up.

Nitin Vs State of U.P.

Sonu @ Awdhesh Vs State of U.P.

Brijesh Kumar Vs State of U.P.

Dharmendra Kumar Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Lakhram @ Lakhveer Vs State of U.P.