Bail application filed by Niyaj in a rape case against a 2-year-old child under IPC and POCSO was rejected. The court held the case to involve serious offences with strong evidence, making it unfit for bail release. Trial expedition left to trial court.
Bail application rejected. Direction to applicant to move trial court for expediting trial.
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.
Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:136157
Court No. - 69
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 10914 of 2020
Applicant :- Niyaj Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Rakesh Pati Tiwari,Rajan Upadhyay,Saima Saher,Virendra Kumar Jaiswal Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Ajeet Srivastava
Hon'ble Samit Gopal,J.
1. List revised.
the victim is aged about 2 years only and it was not possible for anyone to commit rape upon her. It is further argued that the applicant is doing ferri works of selling fruits and there was some dispute in the morning after which the persons of locality harassed him. Para-13 of the affidavit has been placed before the Court for the same. While placing para-14 of the affidavit it is argued that the applicant is a poor and old person aged about 56 years. Further while placing para-11 and 12 of the affidavit it is argued that the present case is a counterblast case as previously in the year 2017 the applicant had lodged an F.I.R. against one Gyani who is relative of first informant/opposite party no. 2. It is argued that the accused of the said case and the opposite party no. 2 of the present case were pressurizing him to enter into compromise but he refused to do so and annoyed by the same as a counterblast the present false case has been lodged against the applicant just in order to create pressure upon him. It is argued that since the applicant and the first informant are living in the same locality there had been some dispute between them many times and as such he has been falsely implicated in the case due to enmity. The applicant is having no criminal history as stated in para- 15 and is in jail since 19.9.2019.
expediting the trial. If any such application is moved, the concerned trial court may pass an appropriate order on the same in accordance with law. Further it is clarified that there is no order passed by this Court expediting the trial. It is left for the concerned trial court to pass appropriate orders in the same.
(Samit Gopal,J.)
Order Date :- 10.7.2023 Naresh
Digitally signed by :- NARESH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the applicant is entitled to bail under Section 439 CrPC in a racketeering case of rape and sexual assault under IPC and POCSO.
Whether the gravity of the offence and nature of evidence preclude granting bail.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Niyaj
State of U.P.
Another
Samit Gopal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
