Allowed

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

Allahabad HC22 Dec 2022BAIL/58861/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment allows a criminal bail application filed by Sanju accused of crimes under IPC and POCSO Act. The court noted discrepancies regarding the victim's age in the FIR and medical report. Bail was granted subject to a personal bond and two sureties with specific conditions.

What did the court decide?

The applicant is enlarged on bail by furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount. Conditions imposed against tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses.

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

¶1

Court No. - 90

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 58861 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Sanju Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Jitendra Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Ajay Bhanot,J.

¶5

By means of this bail application the applicant has prayed to be enlarged on bail in Case Crime No. 218 of 2021 at Police Station Kalan, District Shahjahanpur under Sections 363, 366, 376 IPC and Section 3/4 POCSO Act. The applicant is in jail since 12.08.2022.

¶6

The bail application of the applicant was rejected by learned Special Judge (POCSO Act)/Additional Sessions Judge, Shahjahanpur, on 16.11.2022.

¶7

Sri Jitendra Singh, learned counsel for the applicant contends that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the instant case. The age of the victim is incorrectly depicted as 17 years in the FIR only to aggravate the offence and to ensure indefinite imprisonment of the applicant. Medical report opines that the victim is about 16 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

¶8

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. The applicant was not named in the FIR. The victim also did not identify the applicant as the principal offender in her statement made before the doctor. An aggravated and false version was stated by the victim in her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. at the behest of her parents only to deflect attention from the conduct of victim. There are material contradictions in the FIR and the statement of the victim under Section 161 Cr.P.C and Section 164 Cr.P.C. which discredit the prosecution case. No medical evidence to support any allegation of rape or forceful assault has been produced by the prosecution.

¶9

Shri Paritosh Kumar Malviya, learned AGA for the State could not satisfactorily dispute the aforesaid submissions from the record. Learned AGA further points out that the applicant has a criminal history of one criminal case under the Arms Act.

¶10

Rejoining the issue learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has become a soft target and convenient scapegoat for the police authorities who have falsely implicated the applicant in the said cases to burnish their credentials. The applicant has never misused the liberty of bail granted to him in the said case. the The said case do not have any bearing on this

¶11

bail application.

¶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 bail application is allowed.

¶14

Let the applicant- Sanju 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:-

¶15

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

¶16

(ii) The applicant will not influence any witness.

¶17

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

¶18

(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.

¶19

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 prosecution shall be at liberty to

¶20

move bail cancellation application before this Court.

¶21

Order Date :- 22.12.2022 Pravin

¶22

Digitally signed by :- PRAVIN VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sanju 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mangala Gond (Father-in-Law) Vs State of U.P.

Rakshad Vs State of U.P and 2 Others

Vikas @ Vipin Kumar Vs State of U.P.

Shahnajar Urf Sonu Caudhary Vs State of U.P.

Manbodh Vs State of U.P.

Surya Bhan Yadav Vs State of U.P.