The High Court allowed a bail application filed by Sonu @ Ujaif in a case involving alleged offenses under IPC and POCSO Act. The court held the applicant was falsely implicated and granted bail with conditions.
Applicant released on bail by furnishing personal bond and two sureties.
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. - 70
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 5773 of 2022
Applicant :- Sonu @ Ujaif Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Rajiv Sisodia,Deepak Kumar,Dhirendra Kumar Srivastava,Ramesh Kumar Ojha Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Manoj Pandey,Prakash Tripathi
Hon'ble Ajay Bhanot,J.
By means of this bail application the applicant has prayed to be enlarged on bail in Case Crime No. 231 of 2021 at Police Station Mandawali, District Bijnor under Sections 363, 366, 376 IPC and Section 3/4 of POCSO Act. The applicant is in jail since 06.11.2021.
The bail application of the applicant was rejected by learned Special Judge (POCSO Act)/Additional Sessions Judge, Bijnor on 28.01.2022.
Shri Ramesh Kumar Ojha, learned counsel assisted by Sri Hari Om Sharan Tiwari, learned counsel for the applicant contends that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the instant case. The medical report to determine the age of the victim opines that she is about 17 years of age. The victim is infact a major. Learned counsel for the applicant made two submissions in regard to the aforesaid medical report. Firstly, the range of error in determining the age is about two years, and the same should be read in favour of the applicant at this stage. Secondly, the medical report is flawed. The latest medical protocol and other scientific criteria were excluded from consideration in the
medical report. For example, size of the teeth, heredity, socioeconomic environment and dietary habits have not been factored in the said medical report. These have a bearing on the human growth and determination of age.
Shri Ramesh Kumar Ojha, learned counsel for the applicant further contends that the applicant and the victim were intimate. Their consensual relationship was opposed by the family members of the victim. The F.I.R. is a result of such opposition. The victim in her statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. has admitted the intimacy with the applicant. She eloped with the applicant of her own volition and travelled with him to various places. The victim further asserted that she got married to the applicant of her free will. She established a physical relationship with the applicant. Thereafter the two started staying together as a couple. No allegations of abduction, rape or forceful assault have been made against the applicant by the victim in her statements. Medical evidence which corroborates the allegation of rape or forceful assault has not been produced by the prosecution. The F.I.R. has been lodged at the behest of the parents of the victim only to deflect attention from the victim and cause a breach in their relationship. False allegations under the POCSO Act have been made only to ensure the indefinite imprisonment of the applicant. Learned counsel for the applicant contends that the applicant does not have any
criminal history apart from the instant case.
Learned AGA for the State and Sri Prakash Tripathi, learned counsel for the informant could not satisfactorily dispute the aforesaid submissions.
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.
In the light of the preceding discussion and without making any observations on the merits of the case, the bail application is allowed.
Let the applicant- Sonu @ Ujaif 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:-
(i) The applicant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.
(ii) The applicant will not influence any witness.
(iii) The applicant will appear before the trial court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted.
(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.
In case any averment made in the bail application or the submissions during the course of argument are found to be false or in case of breach of any of the above condition, the State/prosecution may move an application for cancellation of bail application.
Order Date :- 21.7.2022 Pravin
Digitally signed by PRAVIN VERMA Date: 2022.07.22 14:24:53 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the applicant is entitled to bail despite the pending investigation under POCSO Act.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Sonu @ Ujaif
State Of U.P.
Ajay Bhanot
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
