In this bail application, the High Court rejected the plea of Umesh Saroj who was accused of sexually assaulting a 12-year-old girl. The court held that the nature of the offense, severity of punishment, and evidence on record warranted denial of bail.
Bail application rejected; no order for release on bail.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 75
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 30498 of 2022
Applicant :- Umesh Saroj Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Rajesh Kumar Mishra,Ashish Pandey,Pankaj Kumar Ojha,Seemant Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Akhilesh Kumar Tripathi,Pardeep Narayan Pandey
Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.
Heard Mr. Pankaj Kumar Ojha, learned counsel for the applicant, Mr. Pardeep Narayan Pandey, learned counsel for the informant and Mr. Pankaj Srivastava, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material on record.
The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant, Umesh Saroj with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No.194 of 2022, under Section 376 I.P.C. & Section 5/6 POCSO Act, Police Station-Naini, DistrictPrayagraj, during pendency of trial.
As per prosecution case, the FIR was lodged on 30.4.2022 at 22:25 hours by Smt. Archana Bhartiya, wife of the applicant, alleging therein that her 12 years old sister was sexually exploited by the applicant. Details about the incident dated 28.04.2022 at 9:00 P.M. have been given in the FIR.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case as there was dispute between the applicant and the informant. The present FIR is a result of matrimonial discord between the informant and the applicant. There is two days delay in lodging the FIR without giving any plausible explanation. He has emphasized on the variations in the statements of the victim recorded under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. He further submits that there is nothing in the medical report of the victim to show that any such incident took place. He further submits that the applicant has no previous criminal history. He is languishing in jail since 01.05.2022. There is no possibility of fleeing away from the judicial process or tampering with the witnesses and in case, the applicant is enlarged on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of
bail.
Learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for the informant on the other hand submit that seeing the statement before the doctor as well as under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C., consistent statement regarding sexual assault by the applicant has been given by the victim. They submit that victim is 12 years old minor girl. From the medical report also, it is clear that some incident has been taken place as there is bleeding / discharge on the date of incident and on the next day of assault. The victim has also complained about painful urination, which has been mentioned in the medical report. From the aforesaid, the involvement of the applicant in the incident is found to be true. They further submit that in such cases, the victim has to give second thought and gather lot of energy to disclose about the incident, which has happened. Thus, there is sufficient evidence available on record against the applicant with regard to the heinous crime committed by him, hence the applicant is not entitled for bail at this stage.
Considering the nature of the offence, material/evidence brought on record, complicity of the accused, severity of punishment, the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, I do not find any good reason to exercise my discretion in favour of the accused applicant. Thus, the bail application stands rejected .
However, it is expected that the trial court shall make all sincere endeavours to expedite the proceedings of the trial and conclude the same as expeditiously as possible. It goes without saying that if the prosecution witnesses are not turning up deliberately, then the court below has all the powers to adopt all the coercive measures provided under the Code in order to procure the presence of the witnesses.
Office is directed to communicate the copy of this order forthwith to concerned court for necessary compliance.
Order Date :- 1.12.2022 Rahul.
Digitally signed by RAHUL GOSWAMI Date: 2022.12.06 11:30:08 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
2 issues framed by the court
Whether bail should be granted to the applicant charged with rape and offenses under POCSO Act.
Whether the delayed FIR, variations in statements, and lack of physical injuries negate the version of prosecution.
3 provisions across 3 enactments
Umesh Saroj
State Of U.P.
Archana Bhartiya
3 Others
Manju Rani Chauhan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
