Dismissed

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

Allahabad HC30 May 2023ABAIL/2296/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A single-judge High Court rejected an anticipatory bail application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. in a case alleging rape and molestation of a minor, holding it was not a fit case to grant bail without expressing an opinion on the merits.

What did the court decide?

Prayer for anticipatory bail is refused and rejected.

What the court decided

Sachin Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:121923

¶2

Court No. - 84

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 2296 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Sachin Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Manish Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Ajay Kumar Dwivedi,R.U. Rinki Renu,Renu Srivastava

¶5

Hon'ble Nalin Kumar Srivastava,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned counsel for the informant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶7

This application has been moved on behalf of the applicant Sachin seeking anticipatory bail in Case Crime No.218 of 2022, under Sections 376, 323 IPC and Section 3/4 POCSO Act, Police Station- Fariha, District- Firozabad.

¶8

It is alleged in the FIR that on 12.12.2022 at about 7.00 pm. the accused applicant called the minor girl of the informant aged about 14 years and tried to outrage her modesty forcefully and made an assault upon her and on her shrieks he fled away. FIR was lodged under Section 354, 323 I.P.C. and 7/8 POCSO Act and investigation started, which is going on. However, during course of investigation, the case was converted into Section 323, 376 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 POCSO Act.

¶9

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is innocent and has no concern with the present matter. Allegations levelled against the applicant are false. It is further argued that investigation is going-on and till date no charge-sheet has been submitted against the accused applicant. It is further submitted that there are major contradictions in the statement made in the FIR, statement of the prosecutrix under Section 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. It is further submitted that a simple allegation of molesting only was alleged in the FIR initially but subsequently in her statement under Section 161 the story was improved and Section 164 Cr.P.C. the prosecutrix totally changed the prosecution story and alleged the accused applicant for committing rape against her. It is further submitted that earlier to this occurrence an application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. was moved by the mother of the present applicant against the informant and his other family members alleging the same incident caused by Kuldip, one relative of the informant and the incident was said to be happened on

¶10

12.12.2022, which is prior to the occurrence of this case. The medical report does not support the prosecution version. It is further submitted that as a counter blast of that case, the present FIR was lodged against the accused applicant. It is further submitted that the accused applicant is cooperating during the course of investigation. It is lastly submitted in case applicant is granted anticipatory bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail and would obey all conditions of bail.

¶11

Learned A.G.A. and learned counsel for the informant opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail. It is submitted that in her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. the minor victim has categorically made allegation of rape against the present accused applicant and no possibility of false implication of the accused applicant has come into light during the course of investigation. It is further submitted that this is a case where rape has been committed against minor girl of a tender age of 13-14 years and the FIR is never is an encyclopedia of a case. It is further submitted that the accused applicant committed a heinous offence and he is not entitled for anticipatory bail.

¶12

In Sushila Aggarwal and others vs. State (NCT of Delhi) and another, (2020) 5 SCC 1 , the Hon'ble Apex Court has settled held that while considering an application for grant of anticipatory bail, the court has to consider the nature of the offence, the role of the person, the likelihood of his influencing the course of investigation, or tampering with evidence including intimidating witnesses, llikelihood of fleeing justice, such as leaving the country, etc. It has further been held that Courts ought to be generally guided by considerations such as the nature and gravity of the offences, the role attributed to the applicant, and the facts of the case, while considering whether to grant anticipatory bail, or refuse it. Whether to grant or not is a matter of discretion.

¶13

Hence, considering the settled principles of law regarding anticipatory bail, submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, nature of accusation, role of applicant and all attending facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion of the merits of the case, I deem it not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail to the present applicant. Prayer made in the application is refused.

¶14

The anticipatory bail application is rejected .

¶15

Order Date :- 30.5.2023 Fhd

¶16

Digitally signed by :- FAHAD NIYAZ High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Sachin 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Mamta Devi Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Hazik @ Hazik Siddiqui Vs State of U.P. and Another

Kanhaiya Yadav Vs State of U.P.

Ramesh Chand Vs State of U.P.

Sartaj Vs State of U.P. and Another

Chaman Lal Diwakar Vs State of U.P. and Another