Allowed

Manshukh v. State of U.P and 3 Others

Allahabad HC16 Jul 2022BAIL/17880/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed bail to the applicant charged with offences including sexual intercourse on young girl and abduction. The court noted the alleged victim claimed to be over 18, consensual relations were opposed by her family, and no medical evidence corroborated rape or assault allegations.

What did the court decide?

The bail application was allowed; the applicant was directed to be released on a personal bond and two sureties subject to specific conditions.

Manshukh 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. - 17880 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Manshukh Opposite Party :- State Of U.P And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Anil Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Ajay Bhanot,J.

¶5

Shri Paritosh Kumar Malviya, learned AGA 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 the bail application upon the informant/victim as well as upon the CWC.

¶6

By means of this bail application the applicant has prayed to be enlarged on bail in Case Crime No.215 of 2021 at Police Station-Sahawar, DistrictKasganj under Sections 363, 366, 376 IPC and Section 3/4 of POCSO Act. The applicant is in jail since 21.07.2021.

¶7

The bail application of the applicant was rejected by learned Special Judge (POCSO Act), Kasganj on 18.102.2021.

¶8

Shri Anil Kumar, learned counsel for the applicant

¶9

contends that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the instant case. As per the prosecution case set out in the F.I.R., the age of the victim is about 18 years. The medical report to determine the age opines that she is about 21 years of age. The applicant and the victim were intimate. Their consensual relationship was opposed by the family members of the victim. The F.I.R. is a result of such opposition. The victim in her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. has stated that she was being forced by her parents to marry against her wishes. She eloped with the applicant to Etah and thereafter to Agra by bus and finally went to Gujarat. She has further asserted that the two stayed together in a rented accommodation in Gujarat. The victim and the applicant have been residing together as a married couple ever since. She wants to stay with the applicant. No allegations of abduction, rape or forceful assault have been made against the applicant by the victim in her statement. Medical evidence which corroborates the allegation of rape or forceful assault has not been produced by the prosecution. False allegations under the POCSO Act have been made only to ensure the indefinite imprisonment of the applicant. Learned counsel for the applicant contends that the

¶10

applicant does not have any criminal history apart from the instant case.

¶11

Shri Paritosh Kumar Malviya, learned AGA 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.

¶12

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.

¶13

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

¶14

Let the applicant-Manshukh 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:-

¶15

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

¶16

(ii) The applicant will not influence any witness.

¶17

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

¶18

(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.

¶19

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

¶20

Order Date :- 16.7.2022 Ashish Tripathi

¶21

Digitally signed by ASHISH NAYAN TRIPATHI Date: 2022.07.16 14:53:42 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Manshukh v. State of U.P and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manshukh 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

Imran Vs State of U.P.

Munna Lal @ Rama Shankar Vs State of U.P.

Tinku Vs State of U.P.

Akash Ahirwar Vs State of U.P.

Sani Diwakar Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Maroof Vs State of U.P.