Dismissed

Guddu Rajbhar v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC17 May 2022BAIL/45345/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single Judge upheld the rejection of a bail application in a POCSO case alleging sexual assault on a minor. The Court rejected the plea that the medical report did not support the prosecution, finding victim statements influential. The application was dismissed and the trial directed to conclude within one year.

What did the court decide?

Bail application rejected. Trial directed to be expedited and concluded within one year.

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

¶1

Court No. - 44

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 45345 of 2021

¶3

Applicant :- Guddu Rajbhar Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Dharmendra Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Ashwani Kumar Mishra,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned AGA for the State and perused the record.

¶6

The present bail application has been filed by the applicant seeking enlargement on bail in Case Crime No. 215 of 2021, under Sections 376 AB IPC and 53/6 of POCSO Act, Police Station Nebuwa Naurangiya, District Kushingar.

¶7

As per the prosecution version the applicant was engaged for placing Tin Shed in the house of informant and was consequently visiting for the last few days to the house of informant. It is alleged that on 12.07.2021 while the informant had gone to attend some court proceedings the applicant came at about 03.00 PM and committed sexual assault on the minor daughter of informant aged 5-6 years by taking her in the sugarcane field. After coming to know of incident from her daughter the informant lodged the FIR. Statement has been given by the minor girl under section 161 Cr.P.C. in which she has attributed the role of sexual assault on the person who was coming to house for laying Tin Shed. In the statement under section 164 Cr.P.C. also similar statement is given by the victim.

¶8

Counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated and that the medical report has not supported the prosecution version. It is further argued that the applicant is in jail since 14.07.2021.

¶9

Learned AGA opposes the bail application.

¶10

I have considered the respective submissions advanced and perused the materials placed on record. The argument raised by applicant's counsel that medical report does not support the incident is not liable to be accepted inasmuch as no injuries were found in the external examination and the internal examination could not be completed as the victim was not cooperating. The statement nevertheless under section 161 and

¶11

164 Cr.P.C. clearly supports the FIR version. The DNA test conducted by the respondent also remain inconclusive for certain part and in respect of some part DNA profile is reported to have been generated. The plea that DNA profile and medical report do not entirely support the prosecution version need not be commented upon by this Court as such issues are to be examined at the stage of trial. In view of the materials that have been placed on record including the statement of victim under section 161 & 164 Cr.P.C., I am of the view that the applicant is not entitled to be released on bail.

¶12

Accordingly, the present bail application is rejected. The trial, however, is directed to be expedited and concluded within a period of one year.

¶13

Order Date :- 17.5.2022 Ashok Kr.

¶14

Digitally signed by ASHOK KUMAR Date: 2022.05.17 17:53:57 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Guddu Rajbhar v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Guddu Rajbhar 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Anil Harijan Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Renu Sharma Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Shobha Vs State of U.P.

Chandan Tiwari Vs State of U.P.

Amit Saxena Vs State of U.P.

Ramu Vs State of U.P.