Shishupal @ Ramji Vs State of U.P. through its Secretary Home Department Civil Secretariat, Lko. and Ors.

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC-LKO:46739

¶2

Court No. - 11

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 323 of 2022

¶4

Applicant :- Shishupal @ Ramji

¶5

Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Through Its Secretary Home Department Civil Secretariat, Lko. And Ors.

¶6

Counsel for Applicant :- Kaushal Kishore Tewari,Amjad Siddiqui,Uttam Kumar Verma

¶7

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶8

Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J.

¶9

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA and perused the record. No one appears for the complainant despite notice.

¶10

The accused-applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No.84 of 2021 under sections 363, 366, 368, 376, 506 IPC and Section 3/4 POCSO Act, P.S. Tambour, District Sitapur.

¶11

Initially a missing person report was lodged. Subsequently, in the statement under section 161 Cr.P.C., she stated that the applicant had taken her to the house of one Arvind and they have committed the offence in question. In the medico-logical examination, the victim stated that she had gone out of her own freewill with the applicant at around 6.00 am on 20.03.2021 although she levelled allegation of the commission of the offence under section 376. In the statement under section 164 Cr.P.C., she not only made the statement against the applicant but also against one Vinod and also alleged that she was threatened by showing a knife. The medical report on record does not corroborate the statements of the victim and demonstrates the age of the victim as 17 years. Apart from the said, there is no concrete material on record to determine the age of he victim at this stage.

¶12

The counsel for the applicant argues that the entire relation in between the applicant and the victim at worst can be termed as consensual. He further argues that the applicant is in custody since 31.05.2021 and only one witness has been examined so far. He thus, argues that there is no likelihood of the trial being concluded in the near future and, as such, it is clear violation of section 35(2) of the POCSO Act. He draws my attention to argue that the right of speedy trial is well settled right under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, which has been violated. He also argues that the condition prescribed under section 35(2) read with Article 21 clearly establishes that the trial has to be concluded with all expedition. He also places reliance upon a

¶13

judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Union of India vs. K. A. Nazeeb (2021) 2 SCC 202 as well as in the case of Satendra Kumar Antil Vs. central Bureau of Investigation & anr.: (2021) 10 SCC 773.

¶14

No one appears for the complainant despite notice. Learned AGA opposes the bail application by arguing that prima-facie the age of the victim is seventeen years and considering the nature of the offence, which is corroborated in the two statements, the bail application deserves to be rejected.

¶15

Considering the arguments made at the bar and the fact that the medical report prima-facie does not corroborate the first information report allegations, the applicant is in custody since 31.05.2021 and more than two years have elapsed, he has no criminal history and thus, considering the mandate of section 35(2) read with Article 21 of the Constitution of India coupled with the fact that there is no likelihood of the trial being concluded in the near future, the applicant is entitled for the bail. Thus the bail application is allowed.

¶16

Let the applicant Shishupal @ Ramji be released on bail in aforesaid first information report number subject to his furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court below concerned with the following conditions:

¶17

(a) The applicant shall execute a bond to undertake to attend the hearings;

¶18

(b) The applicant shall not commit any offence similar to the offence of which he is accused or suspected of the commission; and

¶19

(c) 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.

¶20

Order Date :- 18.7.2023 VNP/-

¶21

Digitally signed by :- VISHVANATH PRASAD SHUKLA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Shishupal @ Ramji v. State of U.P. through its Secretary Home Department Civil Secretariat, Lko. and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shishupal @ Ramji v. State of U.P. through its Secretary Home Department Civil Secretariat, Lko. and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Munendra @ Nanhkey Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Secrt. Lko.

Vikas Chaurasiya Vs State of U.P. Thru.Prin.Secy. Home

Ram Naresh @ Mahesh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. (Home) Lko

Ajay Kumar Trivedi Vs State of U.P through Principal Secretary (Home ) Goverment of U.P Civil Secretariat

Prince Alias Prince Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Home

Raja Alias Rajkumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko. and 3 Others