Allowed

Rahul v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC4 Jul 2022BAIL/8044/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this bail application, the applicant was accused of outraging the modesty of a minor under Sections 354-B and 323 IPC and provisions of the POCSO Act. The High Court allowed the bail by relying on Article 21 and the Dataram Singh precedent, without expressing an opinion on the merits, emphasizing procedural safeguards.

What did the court decide?

The applicant was released on bail by furnishing a personal bond and two sureties, subject to specified conditions regarding appearance and non-interference.

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

¶1

Court No. - 76

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 8044 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Rahul Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Ashok Gupta,Akash Kishan Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Ankur Jaiswal,Anubhav Chandra

¶4

Hon'ble Siddharth,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Anubhav Chandra, learned counsel for the informant and learned A.G.A for the State.

¶6

There is allegation of outraging the modesty of a minor girl aged about 6 years against the applicant. The incident is stated to have taken place on 07.03.2020.

¶7

Learned counsel for the applicant has pointed out that to the medico-legal examination report of sexual violence issued by Women Hospital, Banda which shows that the victim was examined on 06.03.2020 i.e., one day prior to the incident. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that it is a case of false implication. The applicant is the uncle of the victim and there is dispute regarding property. The applicant is in jail since 04.10.2021 and has no criminal history to his credit.

¶8

On the other hand learned A.G.A has opposed the prayer for bail.

¶9

Keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India and the dictum of Apex Court in the case of Dataram Singh Vs. State of U.P. and another reported in (2018)3 SCC 22 and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed.

¶10

Let the applicant, Rahul, involved in Case Crime No. 42 of 2020, under Sections- 354-B, 323 IPC and Section 9/10 POCSO Act, Police Station- Atarra, District- Banda, be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions. Further, before issuing the release order, the sureties be verified.

¶11

The applicant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.

¶12

The applicant will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness.

¶13

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

¶14

The applicant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which he is accused, or suspected of the commission of which he is suspected.

¶15

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 him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶16

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the complainant is free to move an application for cancellation of bail before this court.

¶17

Order Date :- 4.7.2022 Rohit

¶18

Digitally signed by ROHIT DAS Date: 2022.07.05 19:20:01 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Rahul v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rahul v. State of U.P.

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

Lallan Upadhyay Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Syeen Bano and 6 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Mohammad Kasim Vs State of U P and 2 Others

Manish Sharma . T.G.2 Vs State of U.P.

Pawan @ Pankaj Vs State of U.P.

Prem Singh Vs State of U.P.