Allowed

Rajesh v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC5 Jan 2022BAIL/35338/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this bail application regarding a POCSO case, the applicant argued false implication and discrepancies in victim statements. The court, noting the victim's minor status and statement discrepancies without deciding merits, granted bail subject to bond, sureties, and specific conditions including attendance and verification of orders.

What did the court decide?

Release on bail on personal bond and two reliable sureties subject to conditions against tampering with evidence, ensuring presence at trial stages, and complying with order publication/verification.

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

¶1

Court No. - 74 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 35338 of 2021

¶2

Applicant :- Rajesh Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Sushil Kumar Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶3

Hon'ble Saurabh Lavania,J.

¶4

Affidavit of compliance has been filed by learned A.G.A. and the same is taken on record.

¶5

Notice was issued to opposite party no. 2 and despite of service, no one has responded on behalf of the informant to oppose the present bail application.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶7

The present bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant in Case Crime No. 262 of 2021, under Sections 368 I.P.C. and Section 16/17 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences, Act, 2012 at Police Station Goverdhan, District Mathura with the prayer to enlarge him on bail.

¶8

Submission of learned counsel for the applicant while pressing the present bail application is to the effect that the applicant is falsely implicated in the present case by the police. The implication is just to show good work on behalf of the concerned police station. He has stated that initially the first information report was lodged under Section 363 I.P.C. on 05.05.2021. The victim was recovered, as appears from the case diary, on 06.05.2021 as on this date the statement of victim was recorded. In the statement of victim recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., she has not mentioned any name and it transpires from the said statement that after a missed call she went towards godam /warehouse, situated in the vicinity.

¶9

He has further stated that after being recovered, it appears that the victim was tutored by the informant and other family members and she in her statement recorded on 12.05.2021 under Section 164 Cr.P.C. mentioned three names in relation to commission of crime namely Mayank, Rajesh (applicant) and Bhura. From this statement, it reflects that on account of conversations between the accused, the victim came to know the names of the accused including that of applicant and victim was familiar to the accused on relevant date and being so the identification for implication was required which has not been

¶10

carried out. He has also stated that to unearth the truth the investigation based upon the statement of the victim recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. particularly on the fact that she gave a missed call to one person ought to have been conducted by the investigation, which has not been conducted. He also stated that in Majeed Bayan the victim stated that the applicant helped the co-accused Mayank against whom the allegations are serious in nature, as appears from the bail rejection order of Court below. He has also stated that it appears from the story of the prosecution that the victim was having an affair with someone and just to avoid his name, she has falsely named the accusedapplicant and two others. He has also stated that the medical report, as indicated in the bail rejection order, itself shows that the victim was having an affair with someone. The counsel for the applicant has also stated that in the statements made by the victim under Section 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. as also Majeed Bayan are not on same line, as such, the story of prosecution is doubtful. The applicant is in jail since 05.07.2021 for committing no offence.

¶11

Learned A.G.A., on the basis of case diary, has opposed the bail application of the applicant and submitted that the victim is minor and considering the same as also the facts and circumstances of this case, the bail application of the applicant is liable to be rejected however he could not dispute the discrepancy in the statements of the victim recorded under Section 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. as also the Majeed Bayan as pointed out by the counsel for the applicant, based upon the case diary.

¶12

It is next submitted that there is no possibility of tampering of any evidence. In such circumstances, applicant is entitled for bail. It is also submitted that the applicant will never misuse the liberty of bail and shall fully cooperate in the investigation.

¶13

Considering the rival submissions of learned counsel for parties, material placed before this Court as well as totality of facts and circumstances including the statements of victim and without expressing any opinion on the merit of the case, I am of the view that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail.

¶14

Let applicant- Rajesh be released on bail in the aforesaid Case Crime Number on his furnishing personal bond and two reliable sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions:-

¶15

(1) Applicant will not try to influence the witnesses or tamper with the evidence of the case or otherwise misuse the liberty of bail.

¶16

(2) Applicant will fully cooperate in expeditious disposal of the case and shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when witnesses are present in the Court.

¶17

(3) Applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (a) opening of the case, (b) framing of charge; and (c) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C.

¶18

(4) The party shall file computer generated copy of order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad, self attested by it alongwith a self attested identity proof of the said person(s) (preferably Aadhar Card) mentioning the mobile number(s) to which the said Aadhar Card is linked, before the concerned Court/Authority/Official.

¶19

(5) The concerned Court/Authority/Official shall verify the authenticity of the computerized copy of the order from the official website of High Court Allahabad and shall make a declaration of such verification in writing.

¶20

Any violation of above conditions will be treated misuse of bail and learned Court below will be at liberty to pass appropriate order in the matter regarding cancellation of bail.

¶21

Order Date :- 5.1.2022 Saurabh

Rajesh v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajesh v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Billu Vs State of U.P.

Ajay Kumar Gupta Vs State of U.P.

Mohd. Khalid Vs State of U.P.

Manish Pathak Vs State of U.P.

Banti @ Brajesh Vs State of U.P.

Ravi Vs State of U.P. and Another