Allowed

Sukhram @ Sukke v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC15 Mar 2022BAIL/39173/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a bail application under Sections 376, 504, and 506 IPC and POCSO Act, the High Court allowed the application. The court relied on conflicting medical evidence and noted the applicant had undergone over nine months of incarceration, allowing his release on bond and sureties.

What did the court decide?

The applicant was released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties with conditions to attend trials and not tamper with evidence.

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

¶1

Court No. - 66

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 39173 of 2021

¶3

Applicant :- Sukhram @ Sukke Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Devendra Kumar Tiwari Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.

¶5

Heard Mr. Devendra Kumar Tiwari, the learned counsel for applicant and the learned AGA for State.

¶6

This application for bail has been filed by applicant, Sukhram @ Sukke seeking his enlargement on bail in Case Crime No.73 of 2021, under Sections 376, 504, 506 IPC, Police Station Rampura, District Jalaun, during pendency of trial.

¶7

Perused the record.

¶8

It transpires from record that in respect of an incident which is alleged to have occurred on 19.05.2021, a delayed FIR dated 03.06.2021 was lodged by first informant, Smt. Bhura Devi (mother of prosecutrix) and was registered as Case Crime No.0073 of 2021, under Sections 376, 504, 506 IPC and Sections7/8 POCSO Act, Police Station Rampura, District Jalaun. In the aforesaid FIR five persons, namely, Sukke, Ramsajivan, Gyan Singh, Man Singh and Omprakash have been nominated as named accused.

¶9

The gravamen of the allegations made in the FIR is that named accused, Sukke entered the house of first informant at night and thereafter he carried away the daughter of the first informant namely, Archana. He is also alleged to have dislodged the modesty of the daughter of first informant thereafter by committing rape upon her.

¶10

After registration of aforesaid FIR, investigating officer proceeded with statutory investigation of concerned case crime number in terms of Chapter XII CrPC. The statement of prosecutrix was recorded by investigating officer under Section 161 CrPC. Copy of same is on record at annexure-3 to the affidavit filed in support of the bail application. The prosecutrix in her aforesaid statement has supported the prosecution story. She has further stated the manner in which the alleged criminality was committed upon her. Thereafter prosecutrix was medically examined approximately after 15-16 days. Her Medico Legal Report is on record as annexure-10 to the affidavit. The prosecutrix in her statement before doctor has supported her earlier statement under Section 161 CrPC. The prosecutrix has further detailed the manner of occurrence. However, no injury was found on the body of the prosecutrix so as to denote commission of sexual assault. The recital contained at page-59 of the paperbook belies the credibility of the prosecutrix. However, certain samples were collected from the body of the prosecutrix for pathological examination. However, the supplementary Medico Legal Report of the prosecutrix has not been brought on record. Ultimately, the statement of prosecutrix was recorded under Section 164 CrPC wherein the prosecutrix has departed from her earlier statement under Section 161 CrPC as well as her statement before the doctor.

¶11

During course of investigation, investigating officer recovered the educational certificate pertaining to the prosecutrix. As per the annual examination certificate of Class5 undertaken by the prosecutrix, her date of birth is 11.07.2002. As such, on the date of incident i.e. 19.05.2021 the prosecutrix was aged about 18 years, 8 months and 8 days, therefore, she is major. Ultimately, investigating officer after completion of investigation has submitted the chargesheet dated 25.07.2021

¶12

whereby applicant, Sukhram @ Sukke has been chargesheeted under Sections 376, 504, 506 IPC whereas the other named accused in the FIR have been chargesheeted under Sections 504, 506 IPC.

¶13

Learned counsel for applicant contends that though applicant is a named as well as chargesheeted accused but he is innocent. He has been falsely implicated in aforementioned case crime number. Allegations made in the FIR are false and concocted. As such, applicant is being falsely prosecuted in aforementioned case crime number. It is then contended that prosecutrix is major as is clearly established from her educational certificate, copy of which is on record at page-49 of the paperbook. The medical evidence does not support the prosecution story. Placing reliance upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Vineet Kumar and others Vs. State of UP and another, (2017) 13 SCC 369 , learned counsel for applicant contends that in the absence of medical evidence supporting the prosecution story, no conviction of applicant is possible for an offence under Section 376 IPC. He further submits that the prosecutrix in her statement under Section 164 CrPC has denied the prosecution case. There is no such material on record on the basis of which the statement of the prosecutrix recorded under Section 164 CrPC could be discarded. He further submits that applicant is a man of clean antecedents inasmuch as he has no criminal history to his credit except the present one. Applicant is in jail since 03.06.2021. As such, he has undergone more than nine months of incarceration. In case applicant is enlarged on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail and shall co-operate with the trial. It is lastly contended that since the chargesheet has already been submitted against applicant, evidence sought to be relied upon by prosecution stands crystallized. As such custodial arrest of applicant is not absolutely necessary during

¶14

course of trial. It is thus urged that applicant is liable to be enlarged on bail.

¶15

Per contra, the learned AGA for State has opposed the present application for bail. Learned AGA contends that since applicant is a named as well as chargesheeted accused, therefore, he does not deserve any sympathy of this Court. However, he could not dispute the factual and legal submissions urged by learned counsel for applicant.

¶16

Having heard the learned counsel for applicant, the learned AGA for State, upon consideration of evidence on record, accusations made as well as complicity of applicant but without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, applicant has made out a case for bail.

¶17

Accordingly, present bail application is allowed.

¶18

Let the applicant, Sukhram @ Sukke involved in aforesaid case crime number be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions which are being imposed in the interest of justice:-

¶19

(i) Applicant will not tamper with prosecution evidence.

¶20

(ii) Applicant will abide the orders of court, will attend the court on every date and will not delay the disposal of trial in any manner whatsoever.

¶21

(iii) Applicant will not indulge in any unlawful activities.

¶22

(iv) Applicant will not misuse the liberty of bail in any manner whatsoever.

¶23

The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be

¶24

verified by court concerned and in case of breach of any of the conditions mentioned above, court concerned will be at liberty to cancel the bail of applicant and send him to prison.

¶25

Order Date :- 15.3.2022 Shahroz

¶26

Digitally signed by SHAHROJ ALAM Date: 2022.03.22 14:00:09 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Sukhram @ Sukke v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sukhram @ Sukke 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Farhan Vs State of U.P.

Sunil Kumar Vs State of U.P Thru Secretary Home Lknw. and 3 Others

Irshad @ Ijhar Vs State of U.P. though it Principal Secretary (Home)Lucknow

Azaz Ahmad Vs Union of India

Sarvesh Kumar Vs State of U.P.

Sanjeet Vs State of U.P.