Allowed

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

Allahabad HC15 Jul 2022BAIL/8363/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a bail application under the POCSO Act and IPC sections, the court allowed the applicant's release on bail after finding merit in the counsel's submissions regarding erroneous age depiction of the victim and lack of medical evidence corroborating the rape allegations.

What did the court decide?

Released on bail furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court below.

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

¶1

Court No. - 70

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 8363 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Neeraj Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Gaurav Kumar Shukla,Vishveshwar Mani Tripathi

¶4

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Ganesh Kumar

¶5

Hon'ble Ajay Bhanot,J.

¶6

Shri Ashutosh Pandey, learned brief holder 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 informant/victim as well as upon the CWC.

¶7

By means of this bail application the applicant has prayed to be enlarged on bail in Case Crime No. 319 of 2021 at Police Station Harriya District Basti under Sections 363, 366A, 109/376 IPC and Section 6/17 of POCSO Act. The applicant is in jail since 23.12.2021

¶8

The bail application of the applicant was rejected by learned Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge (POCSO Act), Basti on 02.02.2022.

¶9

Shri Gaurav Kumar Shukla, learned counsel and Shri Vishveshwar Mani Tripathi, learned counsels for the

¶10

applicant contend that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the instant case. The F.I.R incorrectly depicts the age of the victim as 16 and a half years. The medical examination opines that the victim is 17 years of age. The victim is infact a major. Medical examination to determine the correct age of the victim as per the established medical protocol by eminent doctors from a reputed institution was not got done by the prosecution as it would falsify the prosecution case.

¶11

The prosecution case set out in the F.I.R. is that the victim was enticed into a relationship with one Rishabh @ Sonu. Infact the said Rishabh @ Sonu 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 statements of the victim under Sections 161 Cr.P.C. and Section 164 Cr.P.C. are tutored and made at the behest of the family members of the victim. The said statements have been made to deflect attention from the conduct of the victim and to force a breach in her relationship with her love interest Rishabh @ Sonu. The victim has admitted in her statements that she was in a constant telephonic contact with the applicant and Rishabh @ Sonu. She accompanied the applicant to the bus stop riding pillion on his motorcycle. The applicant left her at the bus stop. The victim and the applicant were at different public places, however, she did not resist the applicant not did she raise any hue and cry. The victim thereafter

¶12

accompanied the co-accused Rishabh @ Sonu to various places. The victim was a consenting party. Allegations of rape, inappropriate behaviour or physical assault have not been made by the victim against the applicant. No medical evidence which corroborates the allegation of rape or forceful assault has been produced by the prosecution. Prosecution evidence does not connect the applicant with the offence. False allegations under the POCSO Act have been made only to ensure the indefinite imprisonment of the applicant. The role of the applicant is distinguishable from that of the principal offender Rishabh @ Sonu. Learned counsel for the applicant contends that the applicant does not have any criminal history apart from the instant case.

¶13

Shri Ashutosh Pandey, learned brief holder for the State could not satisfactorily dispute the aforesaid submissions from the record. Learned AGA does not dispute the fact that the applicant does not have any criminal history apart from this case.

¶14

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.

¶15

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

¶16

Let the applicant- Neeraj be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number, on furnishing a personal

¶17

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:-

¶18

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

¶19

(ii) The applicant will not influence any witness.

¶20

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

¶21

(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.

¶22

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

¶23

Order Date :- 15.7.2022 Dhananjai

¶24

Digitally signed by DHANANJAI Date: 2022.07.15 16:55:55 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Neeraj 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ramdev Vs State of U.P. and Another

Dabaloo Kumar Bharti Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Jitendra Vs State of U.P.

Imran Vs State of U.P.

Munna Lal @ Rama Shankar Vs State of U.P.

Tinku Vs State of U.P.