This is an order in criminal bail application filed by Babu seeking enlargement in a case involving rape and POCSO offences. The High Court rejected the application, holding there were no grounds for release considering the nature of offences and prior rejection of co-accused's bail.
Bail application dismissed; applicant ordered to remain in custody.
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. - 66
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 45322 of 2021
Applicant :- Babu Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Suneel Kumar "Tiwari" Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.
Heard Mr. Suneel Kumar "Tiwari", learned counsel for applicant and learned A.G.A. for State.
This application for bail has been filed by applicant Babu seeking his enlargement on bail in Case Crime No. 260 of 2020, under Sections 376D/34 IPC and Sections 5/6 POCSO Act, P.S. Amriya, District Pilibhit, during pendency of trial.
Perused the record.
At the very outset, learned A.G.A. contends that offence complained of is punishable under Section 376 D IPC as well as Sections 5/6, 13 and 16/17 of POCSO Act along with Sections 506 and 34 IPC. As such, criminality committed by named accused, who are four in numbers, cannot be separated or segregated. Same is interlinked and intertwined.
It is then contended that bail application of co-accused Monu alias Om Prakash has been rejected by this Court, vide order dated 17.3.2021. As such present application is also liable to be rejected. For ready reference, order dated 17.3.2021 is reproduced herein under:-
"Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for State and perused the material available on record.
Accused-applicant, involved in Case Crime No. 260 of 2020, under Sections 376D, 506, 34 I.P.C. and Sections 5/6, 13 and 16/17 of Protection of Children From Sexual Offence Act, Police Station - Amriya, District - Pilibhit, applied for bail.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that accused - applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. He further submits that applicant was consenting party. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that victim is more than 16 years old and she was fully aware what was happening with her. There is no public witness to support of the prosecution case. There is no video recording in this bail application. First information report has been lodged by delaying of two months without any proper explanation. Although,
accused - applicant is named in the FIR, but he has no concern with the present case. After the incident of present case, marriage of victim took place. Applicant is in jail since 7.10.2020. There is no criminal history. It is further submitted that there is no possibility of the applicant's fleeing away from the judicial process or tampering with the witnesses. In case, the applicant is enlarged on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail. Due to heavy pendency of cases in the Court, there is no possibility of early conclusion of the trial.
Learned AGA vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that accused - applicant took the prosecutrix in the sugarcane field forcibly and committed rape with her. Co-accused - Ram Awtar made video of rape in his mobile.
Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, rival submission of learned counsel for the parties, statement of prosecutrix under Section 164 Cr.P.C. and evidence collected by I.O. during investigation, I do not see any good ground to release the applicant on bail.
Accordingly, the bail application of the applicant is rejected."
When confronted with above, learned counsel for applicant could not overcome the same.
In view of above, this application for bail fails and is liable to be rejected.
It is, accordingly, dismissed.
Order Date :- 21.4.2022 HSM
Digitally signed by HARI SHANKER MISHRA Date: 2022.04.27 12:36:48 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the applicant Babu be granted enlargement on bail in case Crime No. 260 of 2020 involving serious offences under IPC and POCSO Act.
Whether rejection of bail application of co-accused Monu is a relevant consideration for the present bail application.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Babu
State of U.P.
Rajeev Misra
Hari Shanker Mishra
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
