Allowed

Chand Babu@ Sameer v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC20 Apr 2022BAIL/2884/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court granted bail to an accused facing trial for rape and other offences. Bail was allowed based on the prosecutrix's statement indicating consensual relationship and marriage, alongside medical age report confirming she was major. The applicant must surrender and abide by standard bail conditions.

What did the court decide?

Accused released on bail on personal bond with two sureties subject to conditions of not tampering with evidence and cooperating in trial.

Chand Babu@ Sameer Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others — Narcotics (NDPS) | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 69

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 2884 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Chand Babu @ Sameer Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Sanjay Singh Sengar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Dinesh Kumar Gupta,Mahesh Kumar Gupta

¶4

Hon'ble Mohd. Faiz Alam Khan,J.

¶5

Counter affidavit filed by the State is taken on record.

¶6

Heard Shri Rajiv Tiwari, Advocate holding brief of Shri Sanjay Singh Sengar, learned counsel for the accused-applicant, Shri Dinesh Kumar Gupta, learned counsel for the informant/opposite party no.2 as well as learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶7

This bail application has been moved by the accused/applicant- Chand Babu @ Sameer for grant of bail, in Case Crime No.326 of 2021, under Sections 376(2), 363, 366 I.P.C., Section 6 of the P.O.C.S.O. Act and Section 3(2)(V) of the S.C./S.T. Act, Police Station Rath, District Hamirpur, during trial.

¶8

Learned counsel for the accused-applicant while pressing the bail application submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in this case and he has not committed any offence as claimed by the prosecution.

¶9

It is further submitted that it is a case of false implication and even all the allegations of the prosecution are taken on its face no offence has been committed by the applicant. It is also submitted that the first information report of this case was lodged by the informant, who is the father of the prosecutrix, on 09.07.2021 pertaining to the incident, which had occurred on 07.07.2021 and it is stated therein that the instant applicant has enticed away her daughter aged about 16 years. On being recovered, statement of the prosecutrix was recorded under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C., wherein she stated that she had gone with the applicant with her free wish and will and they were in love and have married in a temple and have started living as husband and wife and on her insistent, the instant applicant had taken her to her maternal home, from where she was apprehended.

¶10

Highlighting the above factual matrix, it is vehemently

¶11

submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that the prosecutrix in her statement recorded under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. has not levelled any imputation against the applicant and she had stated to have accompanied the applicant with her free wish and will and also that they have married and were living as husband and wife and she was pregnant of 6 months.

¶12

It is further submitted that though on the basis of the educational certificate date of birth of the prosecutrix is 11.11.2004, but the age, which has been determined through the ossification test by the Chief Medical Officer, Hamirpur, is 19 years and at the date and time the prosecutrix was the age of sufficient maturity and was capable of taking decisions and thus no offence has been committed by the applicant. It is next submitted that applicant is in jail in this case since 03.08.2021, charge-sheet in this case has already been submitted and there is no apprehension that after being released on bail the applicant may flee from the course of law or may otherwise misuse the liberty.

¶13

Learned A.G.A., however, opposes the prayer of bail of the applicant on the ground that the applicant has committed heinous offence and having regard to the manner in which the crime has been committed, he is not entitled to be released on bail but could not controvert the fact that the prosecutrix in her statement recorded under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. has not supported the version of the prosecution.

¶14

Shri Dinesh Kumar Gupta, learned counsel for the informant/opposite party no.2 submits that at the relevant date and time, the prosecutrix was minor and therefore, her consent is immaterial and having regard to the offences committed by the applicant, he is not entitled to released on bail.

¶15

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the record, it is evident that the prosecutrix on being recovered in her statement recorded under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. has categorically stated that she had accompanied the applicant with her free wish and will and they were in love and have married in accordance with Hindu rites and were living as husband and wife and they cohabited with her free wish and will and also that she is about 6 months' pregnant. The date of birth of the prosecutrix is 11.11.2004, while as per medical certificate issued by the Chief Medical Officer, Hamirpur of date 28.02.2022, she is shown to be of 19 years. Applicant is in jail since 03.08.2021 in this case.

¶16

Keeping in view all the facts and circumstances of the case

¶17

specially the circumstance that the prosecutrix has categorically stated to have accompanied the applicant with her free wish and will and also they have married and she at the time of recording of her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. was pregnant by 6 months, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I am of the considered view that applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application of applicant is thus allowed .

¶18

Let the accused/applicant- Chand Babu@ Sameer involved in above-mentioned case, be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions:-

¶19

(i) The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence by intimidating/pressurizing the witnesses, during the investigation or trial.

¶20

(ii) The applicant shall cooperate in the trial sincerely without seeking any adjournment.

¶21

(iii) The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal activity or commission of any crime after being released on bail.

¶22

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

¶23

Identity, status and residence proof of the applicant and sureties be verified by the Court concerned before the bonds are accepted.

¶24

Observations made herein-above by this court are only for the purpose of disposal of this bail application and shall not be construed as an expression on the merits of the case.

¶25

Order Date :- 20.4.2022 Anupam S/-

¶26

Digitally signed by ANUPAM SINGH PATEL Date: 2022.04.20 16:59:04 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Chand Babu@ Sameer v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chand Babu@ Sameer 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

Ajay Kumar Pathak Vs State of U.P. and Another

Narayani Singh and 7 Others Vs State of U.P.

Vimala Devi Vs State of U.P.

Chandra Pal Singh Vs State of U.P.

Pradeep Kumar Vs State of U.P.

Shiv Kumar Tyagi Vs State of U.P. and Another