High Court allowed bail to Babbu @ Jitendra Sharma in a POCSO case. The court held there were material contradictions in victim statements and no medical evidence of rape, granting bail on personal bond and sureties.
Release on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court below.
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. - 70
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 39132 of 2021
Applicant :- Babbu @ Jitendra Sharma Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Munesh Kumar,Abhilasha Singh,Ashutosh Yadav,Shyam Lal Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Sushmita Raghav
Hon'ble Ajay Bhanot,J.
Learned counsel for the applicant is permitted to correct the date on which the applicant was imprisoned in jail during the course of the day.
By means of this bail application the applicant has prayed to be enlarged on bail in Case Crime No. 37 of 2018 (S.S.T. No. 178 of 2018) at Police Station Rajpura District Sambhal under Sections 376 IPC and Section 3/4 of POCSO Act. The applicant is in jail since 28.04.2021.
The bail application of the applicant was rejected by learned Special Judge (POCSO Act)/Additional Sessions Judge, Sambhal at Chandausi on 24.08.2021.
Ms. Abhilasha Singh, learned counsel for the applicant contends that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the instant case. The applicant has been nominated in this case as a principal offender only as a counterblast to a criminal case registered against the family members of the victim instituted by the applicant's family. The instant criminal proceedings are being
leveraged in the earlier criminal case lodged by the family members of the applicant. As per the statement of the victim under Section 161 Cr.P.C. referenced in the bail rejection order, no allegation of rape has been made in the said statement.
The victim herself delayed the recording of statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. which caused the investigation to linger on. This fact has been noticed by this Court in the order dated 20.03.2018 rendered in Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 6248 of 2018(Jitendra Sharma @ Babbu and 2 others Vs. State of U.P. and others). The statement of the victim under Section 164 Cr.P.C. was recorded after inordinate delay. False and exaggerated allegations have been made in the statement of the victim under Section 164 Cr.P.C. only to save the failing prosecution case. Material contradictions in the F.I.R. as well as the statements of the victim under Sections 161 Cr.P.C. and Section 164 Cr.P.C. discredit the prosecution case. Medical evidence which corroborates rape or forceful assault has not been produced by the prosecution. False allegations under the POCSO Act have been made only to ensure the indefinite imprisonment of the applicant. Learned counsel for the applicant contends that the applicant does not have any criminal history apart from the instant case.
Shri Paritosh Kumar Malviya, learned AGA for the State and Shri Vishwajeet Mukherji, learned counsel
holding brief of Ms. Sushmita Raghav, learned counsel for the informant 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.
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.
In the light of the preceding discussion and without making any observations on the merits of the case, the bail application is allowed.
Let the applicant- Babbu @ Jitendra Sharma be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number, 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:-
(i) The applicant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.
(ii) The applicant will not influence any witness.
(iii) The applicant will appear before the trial court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted.
(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.
In case of breach of any of the above condition, the prosecution shall be at liberty to move bail cancellation application before this Court.
Order Date :- 19.7.2022 Dhananjai
Digitally signed by DHANANJAI Date: 2022.07.21 10:31:47 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the applicant is entitled to bail in a POCSO case alleging rape given contradictions in victim statement and lack of corroboration.
Whether the impugned bail rejection order should be set aside allowing the applicant to be released on bail.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Babbu @ Jitendra Sharma
State of U.P.
Ajay Bhanot
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
