Single judge allowed bail to Arif in a case involving IPC 363, 376 and POCSO Act. The court noted the victim was medically found to be 18 years old, not 16, but granted bail without expressing an opinion on the merits of the charge.
Released on bail by executing personal bond with two sureties subject to standard conditions.
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. - 76
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 5983 of 2022
Applicant :- Arif Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Akhilesh Kumar Mishra,Ashok Kumar Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Krishna Kant Tiwari
Hon'ble Shekhar Kumar Yadav,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. Krishna Kant Tiwari, learned counsel for the opposite party as well as learned A.G.A. for the State.
This is a bail application on behalf of the applicant Arif in connection with Case Crime No. 649 of 2021, under Sections 363, 376 of I.P.C, and Section 3/4 POCSO Act, Police StationChandpur, district-Bijnor.
The submission of learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant is quite innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case with the ulterior motive. It is further submitted that the alleged victim was 16 years of age as per her High School Certificate, however as per medical examination report she has been found to be 18 years of age and therefore, she was major on the date of incident. She was consenting party and both were in a love affair, the applicant has not enticed away to victim against her will. It is next contended that as per medical examination report no injury has been found by the doctor on her body either the entire or external. He further submits that applicant is languishing in jail since 15.10.2021 and in case of being released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate in trial.
The learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for grant of bail to the applicant, but could not dispute the aforesaid facts.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, perusing the record and also considering the nature of allegations, arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, without expressing any opinion on the merit of the case, I find it to be fit case for granting bail.
Accordingly, the bail application stands allowed.
Let the applicant Arif involved in the aforesaid crime be released on bail on executing a personal bond and furnishing
two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:
i) The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence.
ii)The applicant shall not threaten or harass the prosecution witnesses;
iii)The applicant shall appear on the date fixed by the trial court;
iv)The applicant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which the applicant is accused, or suspected of the commission;
v)The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade such person from disclosing facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.
Order Date :- 4.11.2022 Neetu
Digitally signed by NEETU SINGH Date: 2022.11.10 11:00:43 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
2 issues framed by the court
Whether bail should be granted to the applicant in a case involving offences under IPC 363, 376 and POCSO Act.
Whether the fact that the alleged victim is medically found to be 18 years old influences the bail application.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Arif
State Of U.P.
3 Others
Sekhar Kumar Yadav
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
