Court allowed bail application filed by Mansingh accused of offenses under IPC and POCSO. Court accepted submissions that victim's age was falsely recorded as underage and found applicant entitled to release on bond and sureties without adjudicating case merits.
Applicant released on bail on personal bond and two sureties subject to 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. - 70
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 9620 of 2022
Applicant :- Mansingh Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Rahul Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Arun Kumar Bajpai
Hon'ble Ajay Bhanot,J.
By means of this bail application the applicant has prayed to be enlarged on bail in Case Crime No.104 of 2021 at Police Station-Kalyanpur, District-Fatehpur under Sections 363, 376, 376(3) IPC and 3/4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. The applicant is in jail since 02.09.2021.
The bail application of the applicant was rejected by learned Additional Sessions Judge/learned Special Judge (POCSO Act), Fatehpur on 16.12.2021.
Shri Rahul Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant contends that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the instant case. The age of the victim was falsely recorded as 13 years in the F.I.R. only to implicate the applicant under the stringent provisions of the POCSO Act and cause his indefinite imprisonment. As per the medical report drawn up to determine the age of the victim, she is about 16 years of age. The victim in fact 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 relevant scientific criteria were excluded from consideration in the medical report.
Shri Rahul Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant contends that the victim and the applicant were intimate. Their relationship was opposed by the family members of the victim. The F.I.R. is the result of such opposition. The victim in her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. has admitted to intimacy with the applicant. She has further asserted that when their relationship came to the knowledge of the family of the victim, she was assaulted by her brother. She left her house due to the family quarrels and called the applicant. She eloped with the applicant to Delhi. It is categorically stated that she got married to the applicant and their marriage has been consummated. She wants to stay with the applicant. No allegation of rape, inappropriate conduct or forceful assault has been made against the applicant in the said statement. The medical report does not corroborate the allegation of rape or any
forceful assault against the applicant. Learned counsel for the applicant contends that the applicant does not have any criminal history apart from the instant case.
Learned A.G.A. as well as Shri Prabhakar, learned counsel holding brief of Shri Arun Kumar Bajpai, learned counsel for the informant could not satisfactorily dispute the aforesaid submissions.
I see merit in the submissions of the learned counsel for the applicant and 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-Mansingh 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 concerned subject to following conditions.
(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.
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 of breach of any of the above condition, the prosecution shall be at liberty to move bail cancellation application before this Court. Order Date :- 25.7.2022 Ashish Tripathi
Digitally signed by ASHISH NAYAN TRIPATHI Date: 2022.07.26 10:07:26 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the applicant is entitled to bail considering allegations regarding the victim's age and the nature of the relationship.
Whether to approve the personal bond and two sureties conditions for the applicant's release.
Mansingh
State Of U.P.
Ajay Bhanot
Ashish Tripathi
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
