Allowed

Bablu @ Virendra v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC28 Jul 2022BAIL/17103/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Justice Ajay Bhanot allowed a bail application for an applicant charged under POCSO and IPC sections, finding merit in the argument of false implication and consensual relationship, ordering release with conditions.

What did the court decide?

Applicant be released on bail by furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each, and shall comply with standard court conditions regarding appearance and non-interference with witnesses.

Bablu @ Virendra 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. - 17103 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Bablu @ Virendra Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Rajesh Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶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.63 of 2021 at Police Station Badausa District Banda under Sections 363, 366, 376, 379, 411 IPC and 3/4 of POCSO Act. The applicant is in jail since 10.07.2021.

¶6

The bail application of the applicant was rejected by learned Additional Sessions Judge/ Special Judge (POCSO Act), Banda on 01.10.2021.

¶7

Shri Rajesh Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the applicant contends 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 imprisonment. Incorrect age was entered in the school certificate by the parents of the victim only to give her unfair advantage in life. As per the medical report drawn up to determine the age of the victim, she is about 17 years of age. The victim in fact a major.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant made two

¶9

submissions in regard to the aforesaid medical report. Firstly, the range of error in determining the age is about two years and the same should be read in favour of the applicant at this stage. Secondly, the medical report is flawed. The latest medical protocol and relevant scientific criteria were excluded from consideration in the medical report.

¶10

Learned counsel for the applicant then contends that 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 the aforesaid opposition. The victim in her statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. has admitted to intimacy with the applicant. She has further asserted that accompanied the applicant to Chitrakoot to get married. Aggravated and false allegations were made in the aforesaid statement as well as in the statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C at the behest of her parents only to deflect attention from her conduct and to save the failing prosecution case. The victim accompanied the applicant to various public places and stayed with him in a rented accommodation at Chitrakoot. She did not resist the applicant nor did raise any alarm. She was a consenting party. Medical evidence to corroborate rape or forceful assault has not been produced by the prosecution. Learned counsel for the applicant contends that the applicant does not have any criminal history apart from the instant case.

¶11

Shri Kamarul Hasan, learned counsel for the informant

¶12

and learned A.G.A for the State could not satisfactorily dispute the aforesaid submissions.

¶13

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.

¶14

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

¶15

Let the applicant-Bablu @ Virendra 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:-

¶16

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

¶17

(ii) The applicant will not influence any witness.

¶18

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

¶19

(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.

¶20

In case any averment in the bail application or

¶21

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.

¶22

Order Date :- 28.7.2022 Nadeem

¶23

Digitally signed by NADEEM AHMAD Date: 2022.07.28 17:20:45 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Bablu @ Virendra v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bablu @ Virendra 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

Vinod Vs State of U.P.

Shivnath Vs State of U.P.

Rakesh Vs State of U.P.

Chiku Alias Atahar Vs State of U.P.

Upendra Vs State of U.P.

Ashok Kumar Tyagi Vs State of U.P.