Allowed

Saurabh Singh @ Monu Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko. and Others

Allahabad HC16 May 2023/1299/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment grants bail to Saurabh Singh in a case involving rape and POCSO offenses, citing family property disputes and discrepancies in victim statements as sufficient grounds for enlargement on bail.

What did the court decide?

Release on bail furnishing personal bond and two sureties each.

What the court decided

Saurabh Singh @ Monu Singh Vs State of U.P… — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC-LKO:34028

¶2

Court No. - 16

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 1299 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Saurabh Singh @ Monu Singh Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko. And Others

¶5

Counsel for Applicant :- Vashu Deo Mishra,Anoop Kumar Mishra,Kunwar Prithvi Tomar,Manoj Kumar Singh,Sourabh Mishra

¶6

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Mohammad Alishah Faruqi

¶7

Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,J.

¶8

Heard Sri Manoj Kumar Singh, the learned counsel for the applicant as well as Sri Amit Kumar Dwivedi, the learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶9

The instant application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 260 of 2022, under Section 376 A B I.P.C. and Section 5/6 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, registered at Police Station Bakshi Ka Talab, District Lucknow.

¶10

The aforesaid case has been registered on the basis of F.I.R. lodged on 25.07.2022 at 22:14 hours stating that at about 11:00 pm on 22.07.2022, the applicant, who is son of the informant's uncle and who was visiting and staying at the informant's house, raped the informant's daughter aged about 11 years.

¶11

In the affidavit filed in support of the bail application, it has been stated that the applicant is innocent, he has been falsely implicated in the present case for the reason that a property dispute is going on between the applicant and his uncles and the informant is daughter of the applicant's uncle. In this regard an application was given by the applicant's mother on 07.07.2021

¶12

to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Bakshi Ka Talab, which was forwarded to the Station House Officer for disposal. On 12.07.2022, the applicant's brother had given another application to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Bakshi Ka Talab stating that the informant's father had merged the applicant's agricultural filed and had ploughed the same.

¶13

In the statement of the victim recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C, she generally supported the F.I.R allegations but some acts mentioned in the F.I.R were not stated to have been done by the applicant.

¶14

The statement of the victim recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. was at variance in as much as the allegation which were there in the F.I.R and not there in the statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C, were made again in the statement of the victim under Section 164 Cr.P.C.

¶15

The learned counsel for the informant has vehemently opposed the bail application and he has submitted that the informant is not a party to the property dispute and she has no motive to falsely implicate the applicant.

¶16

Having considered the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view the fact that the applicant is cousin of the informant and maternal uncle of the victim; that there is a property dispute which is going between the families of the informant and the applicant; that in the medico-legal examination of the victim no definite opinion has been given regarding the alleged offence and there are some discrepancies in the F.I.R version and in the statement of the victim recorded by the Investigating Officer and before the Magistrate and without making any observations which may affect the merits of the case, I am of the view that the aforesaid facts are

¶17

sufficient for making out a case for enlargement of the applicant on bail.

¶18

Accordingly, this bail application stands allowed.

¶19

Let the applicant- Saurabh Singh @ Monu Singh be released on bail in Case Crime No. 260 of 2022, under Section 376 A B I.P.C. and Section 5/6 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, registered at Police Station Bakshi Ka Talab, District Lucknow, on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of Magistrate/Court concerned, subject to the following conditions: -

¶20

(i) the applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence;

¶21

(ii) the applicant shall not pressurize the prosecution witnesses;

¶22

(iii) the applicant shall appear on each and every date fixed by the trial court.

¶23

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

¶24

(Subhash Vidyarthi,J.)

¶25

Order Date :- 16.5.2023 Preeti.

¶26

Digitally signed by :- PREETI GAUTAM High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Saurabh Singh @ Monu Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko. and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Saurabh Singh @ Monu Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko. and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Amit Kumar Shukla Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. U.P. Lko.

Rohan Singh Alias Ayush Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Secrett. Lko.

Mohd. Affan Siddique Vs State of U.P. Thru. C.B.I

Ajay Pal @ Ajay Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Civil Lko.

Mannu @ Ayan Ali Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Secrt. Lko. and 3 Others

Vishnu Dayal Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Secrt. Lko.