Allowed

Raju Sharma v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC8 Aug 2023BAIL/11062/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A single judge allowed a bail application filed by Raju Sharma in a case under IPC Sections 363, 354B, 376(3) and POCSO Act. The court noted that victims alleged only sexual assault, not rape, and released the applicant on bail with sureties.

What did the court decide?

The applicant to be released on bail by furnishing a personal bond and two sureties in the like amount with standard conditions.

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

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:159484

¶2

Court No. - 70

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 11062 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Raju Sharma Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Rajesh Kumar Pandey,Sandhya Sharma Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Sameer Jain,J.

¶6

Sri Manav Chaurasia, learned AGA apprised the Court that on 03.03.2023 notice has been served upon the informant. Despite service of notice, none appeared on behalf of the informant.

¶7

Smt. Sandhya Sharma, Advocate submits that yesterday she has filed her Vakalatnama but her name is not shown in the cause list.

¶8

Heard Smt. Sandhya Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Manav Chaurasia, learned AGA for the State.

¶9

The instant bail application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 457 of 2022, under Sections 363, 354B, 376(3) IPC read with Section 3/4 POCSO Act, Police Station Khurja Nagar, District Bulandshahar during pendency of the trial.

¶10

FIR of the present case was lodged against unknown person under Section 363 IPC and according to the FIR daughter of the informant aged about 14 years along with cousin sister had gone somewhere from home.

¶11

Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that applicant was not named in the FIR but during investigation when both the victims were recovered and their statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C. were recorded then name of applicant was disclosed. She further submits that even from the statements of both the victims recorded under Sections 161 Cr.P.C. and 164 Cr.P.C. it is apparent that they did not make any allegation of rape and only made allegation of sexual assault. She further submits that applicant is not having any criminal history and in the present matter he is in jail since 25.05.2022 i.e. for more

¶12

than a year.

¶13

Per contra, learned AGA opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the fact that neither in the statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. nor in the statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. of both the victims there is allegation of rape and in both the statements there is allegation of sexual assault against the applicant and applicant is not having any criminal history and in the present matter he is in jail since 25.05.2022.

¶14

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case.

¶15

From the record, it reflects that both the victims in the statements recorded under Sections 161 Cr.P.C. and 164 Cr.P.C. did not make any allegation of rape against the applicant and they have made allegation of only sexual assault against the applicant and other accused persons and applicant is not having any criminal history and in the present matter he is in jail for more than a year.

¶16

Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case discussed above, in my view, applicant is entitled to be released on bail.

¶17

Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the instant bail application is allowed .

¶18

Let the applicant - Raju Sharma be released on bail in the aforesaid case on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:-

¶19

(i) The applicant shall appear before the trial court on the dates fixed, unless his personal presence is exempted.

¶20

(ii) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly, make 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 any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶21

(iii) The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal and antisocial activity.

¶22

In case of breach of any of the above condition, the prosecution will be at liberty to move an application before this Court for cancellation of the bail of the applicant.

¶23

It is clarified that the observations made herein are limited to the facts brought in by the parties pertaining to the disposal of bail application and the said observations shall have no bearing on the merits of the case during trial.

¶24

Order Date :- 8.8.2023 AK Pandey

¶25

Digitally signed by :- ANUPAM KUMAR PANDEY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Raju Sharma v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Raju Sharma 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Deepak Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Gulshan Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Chandra Pal Vs State of U.P.

Vinod Kumar Vs State of U.P.

Vikram Singh Vs State of U.P.

Shamshad Vs State of U.P.