CCM Bail application allowed in case of alleged POCSO/rape offence where victim age was borderline major, no medical report supported rape, and applicant was falsely implicated due to neighborly dispute. Bail granted with bond and strict conditions.
Applicant released on bail by furnishing personal bond and two sureties.
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. - 69
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 9766 of 2022
Applicant :- Golu Alias Ajay Opposite Party :- State Of U.P And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Girish Chandra Maurya, Mirza Faheem Beg Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Siddharth,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A for the State.
As per order dated 05.07.2022, notice on informant has been served but no one has turned up to oppose the bail application.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that it is a case of false implication. FIR has been lodged on 05.12.2021 regarding the incident dated 24.10.2021. From the FIR itself, it is clear that on 24.10.2021 the applicant was challaned under Section 151 Cr.P.C., by the police and subsequently the FIR has been lodged. It has been submitted that the applicant is neighbour of the informant and on account of neighbourly dispute he has been falsely implicated in this case. Initially he was got challaned under Section 151 Cr.P.C., and as an afterthought he has been falsely implicated in this case. Regarding the commission of offence of rape the victim as per the report of C.M.O., Kanpur Nagar, the age of the victim is found to be about 17 years. Given margin of one year on the higher side she can be considered to be major. Medical report does not supports the allegation of rape levelled against the applicant. The applicant is in jail since 06.12.2021 and has no criminal history to his credit.
On the other hand learned A.G.A has opposed the prayer for bail.
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 recent judgment dated 11.07.2022 of the Apex Court in the case of Satendra Kumar Antil vs. C.B.I., passed in S.L.P (Crl.) No. 5191 of 2021 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.
Let the applicant, Golu Alias Ajay, involved in Case Crime No. 416 of 2021, under Sections- 376(3), 504, 506 IPC and Section 3/4(ii) of POCSO Act, Police Station- Bilhaur, District- Kanpur Nagar, 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.
(i) The applicant shall not tamper with the evidence or threaten the witnesses.
(ii) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in Court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the Trial Court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law.
(iii) The applicant shall remain present before the Trial Court on each date fixed, either personally or as directed by the Court. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the Trial Court may proceed against him under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code.
(iv) In case the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence, proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued and the applicant fails to appear before the Court on the date fixed in such proclamation then the Trial Court shall initiate proceedings against him in accordance with law under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code.
(v) The applicant shall remain present in person before the Trial Court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. If in the opinion of the Trial Court absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the Trial Court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law.
In case, of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.
Identity, status and residence proof of the applicant and sureties be verified by the court concerned before the bonds are accepted.
Order Date :- 29.8.2022 Rohit
Digitally signed by ROHIT DAS Date: 2022.08.29 14:02:10 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the applicant is entitled to bail given the allegations of false implication and lack of medical corroboration despite the serious nature of the offence.
Whether the arguments that the victim was likely a major and the initial challan was non-bailable militate in grant of bail.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Dataram Singh Vs. State of U.P.Referred¶9
(2018) 3 SCC 22 · Who else cites this
Satendra Kumar Antil vs. C.B.I.Referred¶9
Satendra Kumar Antil vs. C.B.I.
8 provisions across 4 enactments
Golu Alias Ajay
State Of U.P
Siddharth
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
