Allowed

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

Allahabad HC19 Dec 2022BAIL/27935/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a bail application, the applicant was enlarged on bail in a case involving offences under the POCSO Act and IPC. The court accepted arguments that the victims were likely majors, the relationship was consensual, and there was no prior criminal history.

What did the court decide?

Release on bail by furnishing a personal bond and two sureties in like amount to the satisfaction of the court below subject to conditions.

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

¶1

Court No. - 90

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 27935 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Babloo Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Pankaj Kumar Sharma Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Mohit Gautam

¶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. 52 of 2022 at Police Station Soron, District Kasganj under Sections 363, 366, 376 D IPC and Section 5/6 POCSO Act. The applicant is in jail since 03.04.2022.

¶6

The bail application of the applicant was rejected by learned Special Jusge (POCSO Act), Kasganj, on 03.06.2022.

¶7

Sri Pankaj Kumar Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the instant case. Learned counsel for the applicant further contends that the ages' of the victims Gangashree and Anita as recorded in the medical examination reports is about 16 years and 17 years respectively. Learned counsel for the applicant then contends false dates of birth were made in the school certificates of the victims by their parents only to give them an unfair advantage in life. The said certificates are unreliable. Learned counsel for the applicant raises two objections against the medical reports. Firstly, the range of error in determining the age is about two years, and the same should be read in favour of the

¶8

applicant at this stage. Secondly, the medical reports are flawed. The latest medical protocol and other scientific criteria were excluded from consideration in the medical reports. For example, size of the teeth, heredity, socioeconomic environment and dietary habits have not been factored in the said medical reports. These have a bearing on the human growth and determination of age. Both the victims are majors.

¶9

The third victim has not made any allegation of rape against the applicant.

¶10

The applicant was in a relationship with the victim Gangashree. The FIR is a result of parental opposition to the said relationship. Anita was intimate with the brother of the applicant. Both couples eloped with a view to get married. The victims travelled with the applicant and his brother to various places including Punjab. They also came to the High Court and filed a writ petition seeking protection from perceived threats from their family members. The victims never raised an alarm nor did they resist the applicant. The victims were consenting parties.

¶11

Learned counsel for the applicant contends that the applicant does not have any criminal history apart from the instant case. The applicant resides in Kasganj and is not a flight risk. The applicant is a law abiding citizen who has cooperate with the police investigation. There is no possibility of his influencing

¶12

witnesses, tampering with the evidence or reoffending.

¶13

Shri Markandey Singh, learned AGA for the State and Sri Rajesh Kumar Dubey, learned counsel assisted by Sri Mohit Gautam, learned counsel for the informant could not satisfactorily dispute the aforesaid submissions from the record. Learned AGA does not contest the criminal history of the applicant as disclosed in the bail application.

¶14

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.

¶15

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

¶16

Let the applicant- Babloo 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:-

¶17

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

¶18

(ii) The applicant will not influence any witness.

¶19

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

¶20

(iv) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make

¶21

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.

¶22

In case any averment made in the bail application or the submissions during the course of argument are found to be false or in case of breach of any of the above condition, the prosecution shall be at liberty to move bail cancellation application before this Court.

¶23

Order Date :- 19.12.2022 Pravin

¶24

Digitally signed by PRAVIN VERMA Date: 2022.12.21 15:51:02 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Babloo 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

Iqbal Prashad Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Imran Vs State of U.P.

Kuldeep Vs State of U.P.

Sonu @ Mulayam Singh Vs State of U.P.

Shamshad Vs State of U.P.

Raja Bhaiya Vs State of U.P.