Allowed

Raju Maurya v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC16 Feb 2022BAIL/5373/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a bail application filed by the applicant, who was convicted in a POCSO and IPC case involving the death of a victim following an abortion. The court noted police non-compliance with prior directives regarding victim-specific forms and cited jail overcrowding as a factor for granting bail.

What did the court decide?

Released on bail by furnishing a personal bond and two sureties.

Raju Maurya 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. - 5373 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Raju Maurya Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Vipin Chandra Pal,Dewarshi Kumar Rai Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Ajay Bhanot,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Dewarshi Kumar Rai, learned counsel for the applicant and learned AGA for the State.

¶6

Sri I.P. Srivastava, 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 victim as well as upon the CWC. However, Form A and B have not been supplied by the police authorities to the learned AGA. Superintendent of Police, Rampur, is directed to taken appropriate action as per law against the responsible officers who have failed to provide Form A and B. It is also submitted that no instructions from the CWC district Rampur attesting the compliance of directions issued by this Court in Junaid (supra) are available in the record.

¶7

A first information report was lodged against the applicant as Case Crime No. 297 of 2021 at Police Station- Bilaspur, District Rampur under Sections 376,

¶8

313, 304 IPC and Sections 5j(ii) and Section 6 of the POCSO Act.

¶9

The bail application of the applicant was rejected by learned Special Judge (POCSO Act), Rampur, on 25.11.2021.

¶10

The applicant is in jail since 06.08.2021, pursuant to the said F.I.R.

¶11

Sri Dewarshi Kumar Rai, learned counsel for the applicant contends that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the instant case only to deflect the attention from the conduct of the deceased. As per the case set out in the FIR the victim died as a result of complications arising from abortion procedures conducted in the hospital. The panchayatnama discloses that the sister of the deceased had accompanied her to the hospital. Similarly the mother of the deceased in her statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. has also asserted that she took the deceased to the hospital along with the applicant. The deceased died due to excessive bleeding during the termination of pregnancy at the hospital. The applicant did not have any physical relations with the deceased. Further the applicant had good relations with the family of the deceased. He gave them all possible assistance. He rushed the victim and other family members to the hospital to provide prompt medical relief to the victim after she complainied of severe stomach pain. Apart

¶12

from the instant case the applicant does not have any criminal history. Lastly it is submitted by learned counsel for applicant that the applicant shall not abscond, and will fully cooperate in the criminal law proceedings. The applicant shall not tamper with the evidence nor influence the witnesses in any manner.

¶13

Sri Rishi Chaddha, learned AGA for the State could not satisfactorily dispute the aforesaid submissions from the record. Learned AGA for the State does not contest that the applicant does not has any criminal history as disclosed in the bail application.

¶14

Courts have taken notice of the overcrowding of jails during the current pandemic situation (Ref.: Suo Motu Writ Petition (c) No. 1/2020, Contagion of COVID 19 Virus in prisons before the Supreme Court of India) . These circumstances shall also be factored in while considering bail applications on behalf of accused persons.

¶15

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.

¶16

In the light of the preceding discussion and without making any observations on the merits of the case, the bail application is allowed.

¶17

Let the applicant- Raju Maurya be released on bail in Case Crime No. 297 of 2021 at Police StationBilaspur, District Rampur under Sections 376, 313,

¶18

304 IPC and Sections 5j(ii) and Section 6 of the POCSO Act, on his 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:-

¶19

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

¶20

(ii) The applicant will not influence any witness.

¶21

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

¶22

(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.

¶23

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

¶24

Order Date :- 16.2.2022 Pravin

¶25

Digitally signed by PRAVIN VERMA Date: 2022.02.17 18:04:04 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Raju Maurya v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Raju Maurya 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

Faredhama @Fira Vs State of U.P. through Secretary Home 2 Others

Deepak Vs State of U.P and Another

Gabbar @ Hrithik @ Subham Prajapati Vs State of U.P.

Asgar Vs State of U.P.

Mustaq Ahmad Vs State of U.P.

Mohd. Aslam Vs State of U.P.