Allowed

Sanjiv v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC9 Feb 2022BAIL/33238/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 33238 of 2021, the Allahabad High Court granted bail to Sanjiv, an accused in rape and POCSO charges, citing merit in his counsel's submissions regarding false implication and jail overcrowding during the pandemic. Bail was granted on personal bond and two sureties with strict conditions.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail in Case Crime No.93 of 2021 on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount.

Sanjiv Vs State of U.P. — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 79

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 33238 of 2021

¶3

Applicant :- Sanjiv Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Nigamendra Shukla Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Manoj Kumar Tripathi

¶4

Hon'ble Ajay Bhanot,J.

¶5

Heard Shri Nigamendra Shukla, learned counsel for the applicant and learned AGA for the State.

¶6

Shri I. P. Srivastava, learned AGA on the basis of instructions submits that the police authorities have only partly complied with 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. Notice of the bail application has been served upon the victim. However CWC has not been noticed by the police authorities.

¶7

The S.S.P, Hapur to take appropriate action as per law against defaulting police officials within a period of four months.

¶8

A first information report was lodged against the applicant as Case Crime No. 0093 of 2021 at Police Station Hafizpur District Hapur under Sections 376(3) IPC and Section 3/4 POCSO Act.

¶9

The bail application of the applicant was rejected by learned Additional District and Sessions Judge/ Special Judge POCSO Act, Hapur on 09.07.2021.

¶10

The applicant is in jail since 18.05.2021 pursuant to the said F.I.R.

¶11

Shri Nigamendra Shukla, learned counsel for the applicant contends that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the

¶12

instant case. The incident happened on 14.05.2021. The delay of two days in lodgment of the FIR is fatal to the prosecution case. The FIR was lodged after much deliberation and depicts a false and aggravated version of the incident. The applicant was falsely implicated to divert attention from the conduct of the victim. The victim was a consenting party. There was no occasion for the victim to go to the jungle to ease herself. There is a toilet existing in the house of the victim's parents which was constructed under the Swach Bharat Mission. The medical report does not corroborate the allegations of rape or any forceful assault. As per the medical report the victim is 16 years of age. The said medical report is not reliable. She is in fact a major. Medical examination to determine her age as per medical protocol and latest technology by expert doctors from reputed institution was not got conducted as it would falsify the prosecution case. Learned counsel for the applicant contends that the applicant does not have any criminal history apart from this case. Lastly it is contended by the learned counsel for applicant that the applicant shall not abscond and will fully cooperate in the criminal law proceedings. The applicant shall not tamper with the evidence nor influence the witnesses in any manner.

¶13

Shri I.P. Srivastava, learned A.G.A 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.

¶14

Courts have taken notice of the overcrowding of jails during the current pandemic situation (Ref.: Suo Motu Writ Petition (c) No. 1/2020, Contagion of COVID 19 Virus in prisons before the Supreme Court of India). These circumstances shall also be factored in while considering bail applications on behalf of accused persons.

¶15

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.

¶16

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

¶17

Let the applicant- Sanjiv be released on bail in Case Crime No.93 of 2021 at Police Station Hafizpur District Hapur under Sections 376(3) IPC and Section 3/4 (2) POCSO Act, 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:-

¶18

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

¶19

(ii) The applicant will not influence any witness.

¶20

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

¶21

(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.

¶22

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 :- 9.2.2022 Nadeem

¶24

Digitally signed by NADEEM AHMAD Date: 2022.02.14 10:25:35 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Sanjiv v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sanjiv v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jogendra Singh Vs State of Up.

Ashraf Vs State of U.P.and Another

Dhirendra Vs State of U.P.

Smt. Dilwari Vs State of U.P.

Rai Sahab Prajapati Vs State of U.P.

Vinod @ Mohan Vs State of U.P. and Another