Allowed

Shiva Singh v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC13 Sept 2022BAIL/28031/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Special Judge allowed the bail application of Shiva Singh in a POCSO case involving abduction and rape. Noting the victim's age dispute, lack of criminal history, and settled case law, the court granted bail subject to strict undertakings against adjournments and presence in court.

What did the court decide?

Order to release applicant on bail subject to furnishing a personal bond and two sureties and adherence to specific conditions regarding court appearances.

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

¶1

Court No. - 78

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 28031 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Shiva Singh Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Santosh Kumar Shukla,Namrata Shukla Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Kalp Dev Mishra

¶4

Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Santosh Kumar Shukla, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Kalp Dev Mishra, learned counsel for the informant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record.

¶6

Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No.314 of 2021, under Sections 363, 366, 376 IPC & 3/4 POCSO Act, Police Station Bela, District Auraiya, during the pendency of trial.

¶7

As per the allegations in the FIR, the applicant, in connivance with the accused person Ram Singh, is stated to have enticed away the minor daughter of the informant on 21.11.2021 at about 4:00 pm.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that the applicant is absolutely innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case with a view to cause unnecessary harassment and to victimize him. The FIR is delayed by three days and there is no explanation of the said delay in lodging the said FIR. Learned counsel has further stated that the victim is a consenting party. To buttress his arguments, learned counsel has placed much reliance on the statement of the victim recorded under Section 164 Cr.P..C. wherein she has stated that she had gone with the applicant out of her own sweet will and had married him. She is major aged about 18 years. Several other submissions have been made on behalf of the applicant to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against him. The circumstances which, as per counsel, led to the false implication of the applicant have also been touched upon at length. It is further stated that there is no criminal history of the applicant. The applicant is languishing in jail since 22.04.2022. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶9

Learned A.G.A. for the State and Sri Kalp Dev Mishra, learned counsel for the informant have vehemently opposed the bail

¶10

application on the ground that as per the school certificate, the age of the victim at the time of occurrence is 17 years and two months, as such, she is minor and her consent pale into insignificance, although they could not dispute the fact that as per the statement of the victim recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., she had gone with the applicant out of her own sweet will and also no criminal history of the applicant.

¶11

Learned counsel for the applicant has placed much reliance on the settled case law of the Apex Court in Sushil Kumar vs. Rakesh Kumar, (2003) 8 SCC 673 , wherein it has been stated that it is more often in the Indian Society that person shows the age of their wards much below than their actual age. In the case of Brij Mohan Singh vs. Priya Brat Narain Sinha, AIR 1965 SC 282 , this Court, inter alia, observed that in actual life it often happens that persons give false age of the boy at the time of his admission to a school so that later in life he would have an advantage when seeking public service for which a minimum age for eligibility is often prescribed. It is also settled by Apex Court that as per the medical records, a leverage of two years may be granted to the accused person.

¶12

Keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence on record regarding complicity of the accused, larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India and the dictum of Apex Court in the case of Dataram Singh Vs. State of U.P. and another reported in (2018) 3 SCC 22 and recent judgment dated 11.07.2022 of the Apex Court in the case of Satender Kumar Antil vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another reported in 2022 SCC OnLine SC 825 and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed.

¶13

Let the applicant- Shiva Singh , who is involved in aforementioned 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 subject to following conditions. Further, before issuing the release order, the sureties be verified.

¶14

(i) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the date 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.

¶15

(ii) The applicant shall remain present before the Trial Court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case

¶16

of his absence, without sufficient cause, the Trial Court may proceed against him under Section 229-A IPC.

¶17

(iii) 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., may be issued and if 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 IPC.

¶18

(iv) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the Trial Court on 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.

¶19

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.

¶20

It is made clear that observations made in granting bail to the applicant shall not in any way affect the learned trial Judge in forming his independent opinion based on the testimony of the witnesses.

¶21

Order Date :- 13.9.2022 Ravi Kant

¶22

Digitally signed by RAVI KANT Date: 2022.09.14 09:46:15 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Shiva Singh v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shiva Singh 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

Sandeep Kumar Yadav @ Abhay Yadav Yadav @ Abhay Yadav Vs State of U.P.

Babu Lal Uraon Vs State of U.P.

Radhika Dubey Vs State of U.P.

Vishal Yadav Vs State of U.P.

Smt. Indu Devi Vs State of U.P.

Smt. Anita Vs State of U.P.