Allowed

Rahul v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC18 May 2022BAIL/5211/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This High Court allowed a bail application in a POCSO case. The court noted the victim did not need legal aid and medical evidence did not support forceful assault, finding merit in the applicant's plea that he was falsely implicated.

What did the court decide?

Release on bail by furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court below.

Rahul Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 68

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 5211 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Rahul Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Sanjay Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Ajay Bhanot,J.

¶5

Shri Nafees Ahmad, learned AGA for the State contends that the police authorities in compliance of the directions issued by this Court in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 46998 of 2020 (Junaid Vs State of U.P. and another) reported at 2021 (6) ADJ 511 and with a view to implement the provisions of POCSO Act, 2012 read with POCSO Rules, 2020, have served the bail application upon the informant/victim as well as upon the CWC.

¶6

Child Welfare Committee, district Bulandshahar has also submitted a report disclosing that the victim was apprised of her rights including the right to free legal aid. The report opines that the victim does not need any legal aid. This Court appreciates the efforts of the police authorities as well as the C.W.C. of District Bulandshahar.

¶7

By means of this bail application the applicant has prayed to be enlarged on bail in Case Crime No. 504 of 2021 at Police Station Chatari District Bulandshahar under Sections 377 I.P.C. and Section 5M/6 POCSO

¶8

Act. The applicant is in jail since 03.11.2021.

¶9

The bail application of the applicant was rejected by learned Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge (POCSO Act), Bulandshahar on 20.11.2021.

¶10

Shri Sanjay Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicant contends that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the instant case. The F.I.R. is a result of the political rivalry in the village. Aggravated and false allegations have been made at the instance of the father of the victim only to ensure the indefinite imprisonment of the applicant. The victim has made tutored statements at the behest of her parents. The applicant did not act inappropriately with the victim. Medical evidence does not support the story of forceful assault. Learned counsel for the applicant contends that the applicant does not have any criminal history apart from this case.

¶11

Shri Nafees Ahmad, learned AGA for the State 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.

¶12

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.

¶13

In the light of the preceding discussion and without making any observations on the merits of the case, the

¶14

bail application is allowed.

¶15

Let the applicant- Rahul 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:-

¶16

(i) The applicant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.

¶17

(ii) The applicant will not influence any witness.

¶18

(iii) The applicant will appear before the trial court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted.

¶19

(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.

¶20

In case of breach of any of the above condition, the prosecution shall be at liberty to move bail cancellation application before this Court.

¶21

Order Date :- 18.5.2022 Dhananjai

¶22

Digitally signed by DHANANJAI Date: 2022.05.18 16:41:05 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Rahul v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rahul v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

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

Sarvjeet Verma Vs State of U.P.

Deepu Singh Vs State of U.P.

Akhilesh @ Akhalesh Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Adil Vs State of U.P.

Ajay Vs State of U.P.

Sanoj Singh Vs State of Up.