Allowed

Sonu Alias Rajesh Dwivedi v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC19 May 2022BAIL/17350/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment is a criminal bail application under Case Crime No. 173 of 2021. The court allowed the bail application for the applicant facing charges of kidnapping, sexual intercourse with a minor, and sexual intercourse with a child under POCSO. The court considered the medical report and victim's statement. Bail was granted with strict conditions.

What did the court decide?

Applicant freed on bail with personal bond and two sureties subject to strict conditions for attendance and conduct during trial.

Sonu Alias Rajesh Dwivedi Vs State of U.P… — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 44

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 17350 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Sonu Alias Rajesh Dwivedi Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Kuldeep Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Ashwani Kumar Mishra,J.

¶5

Learned A.G.A. states that the victim and the Child Welfare Committee have already been served through the State on 25.4.2022 but none has appeared on their behalf.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned AGA for the State and perused the record.

¶7

The present bail application has been filed by the applicant seeking enlargement on bail in Case Crime No. 173 of 2021 under Sections 363, 376I.P.C. and Section 6 of the Protection of children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, Police Station Karvi, District Chirakoot.

¶8

As per the prosecution version, the daughter of the informant, aged 15 years and also minor was enticed by the applicant alongwith Bhullan Yadav and she has not been traced out. Subsequently, the victim has been traced and her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. has been recorded, as per which she has gone with the applicant to Maharashtra where they solemnised their marriage and were living in the same room as husband and wife. It is also stated that the victim had gone out of her own free will with the accused.

¶9

Counsel for the applicant states that since the victim had gone with the applicant voluntarily and the parties have also solemnised their marriage and as such the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail. It is further argued that the applicant is in jail since 5.7.2021 and the trial is not likely to conclude shortly and that the applicant undertakes that he will not misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate in the conduct of trial. Learned counsel for the applicant further states that in the medico legal examination of the victim, no external and internal injury has been found although the hymen was raptured. It is contended that the plea of rape has not been substantiated in the medical report.

¶10

Learned AGA opposes the bail application and states that the

¶11

plea of consent would not be available since in the FIR as also during the course of investigation the age of the victim has been found to be 15 years and as such her consent cannot be relied upon.

¶12

Having considered the respective submissions advanced and the fact that no external and internal injury has been seen on the victim during medical examination and the fact that the victim has herself stated in her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. that she had married with the applicant and had gone out of her own violation with the applicant and the plea of rape has not been alleged in her statement as such the applicant is entitled to be released on bail, at this stage. Above observations made in the bail order shall, however, not be construed as expression of opinion, on the merits, at the stage of trial.

¶13

Let the applicant - Sonu alias Rajesh Dwivedi involved in aforesaid case crime be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned, with the following conditions, which are being imposed in the interest of justice:-

¶14

i) The applicant will not tamper with prosecution evidence and will not harm or harass the victim/complainant in any manner whatsoever.

¶15

ii) The applicant will abide the orders of court, will attend the court on every date and will not delay the disposal of trial in any manner whatsoever.

¶16

(iii) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law.

¶17

(iv) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶18

(v) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued and the applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶19

(vi) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (1) opening of the case, (2) framing of charge and (3) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. If in the opinion of the trial court absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law.

¶20

The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be verified by court concerned and in case of breach of any of the conditions mentioned above, court concerned will be at liberty to cancel the bail and send the applicant to prison.

¶21

Accordingly, the present bail application is allowed.

¶22

Order Date :- 19.5.2022 n.u.

¶23

Digitally signed by NASEEM UDDIN Date: 2022.05.20 17:51:28 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Sonu Alias Rajesh Dwivedi v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sonu Alias Rajesh Dwivedi 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

Tarkeshwar Ojha and Another Vs State of U.P.

Munnalal Yadav Vs State of U.P.

Dilip Yadav Vs State of U.P.and 3 Others

Saeed Ahmad Vs State of U.P.

Chukkha Vs State of U.P.

Shanker Vs State of U.P.