Dismissed

Jaislal v. State of U.P. and 3 0THERS

Allahabad HC25 Aug 2023BAIL/12629/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A Single Bench of the Allahabad High Court rejected a bail application. The High Court held that the applicant is not entitled to bail in a serious gang rape case involving a minor where the prosecutrix lodged a consistent FIR and recorded statements, dismissing the defence of consensual love affair as improbable.

What did the court decide?

Bail application rejected; applicant not entitled to be released on bail.

Jaislal Vs State of U.P. and 3 0THERS — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:172323

¶2

Court No. - 70

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 12629 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Jaislal Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 0thers Counsel for Applicant :- Pradeep Kumar Mishra,Ved Prakash Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Anita Singh,Dinesh Kumar Misra,Tanisha Jahangir Monir

¶5

Hon'ble Sameer Jain,J.

¶6

Heard Sri Ved Prakash Mishra., learned counsel for the applicant, Ms. Anita Singh, learned counsel for the informant and Sri Jhamman Ram, learned AGA for the State.

¶7

The instant bail application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 0124 of 2022, S.S. T. No. 141 of 2022, under Sections 376D, 506 IPC and Section 5/6 POCSO Act, Police Station Sarpataha, District Jaunpur during pendency of the trial.

¶8

FIR of the present case was lodged against applicant and one unknown persons and according to the FIR applicant and his unknown associates committed gang rape with the minor daughter of the informant.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that applicant has been falsely implicated in the present matter and he did not commit rape with the prosecutrix although it is a case of gang rape but from the perusal of the medical report of the prosecutrix she did not sustain any injury. He further submits that prosecutrix is aged about 18 years and it is hard to believe that without her consent rape would have been committed with her. He further submits that victim was having love affair with co-accused Suraj and applicant witnessed both of them in objectionable condition, therefore, he has been made accused in the present matter. He further submits that applicant in the present matter is in jail since 09.06.2022 i.e. for more than a year.

¶10

Per contra, learned AGA as well as learned counsel for the informant opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that in the FIR

¶11

as well as in both the statements of the prosecutrix recorded under Sections 161 Cr.P.C. and 164 Cr.P.C. there is allegation of rape against the applicant and it is a case of gang rape, therefore, applicant should not be released on bail.

¶12

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

¶13

Applicant was named in the FIR and victim in her both the statements recorded under Sections 161 Cr.P.C. and 164 Cr.P.C. made allegation of rape against the applicant.

¶14

Although, learned counsel for the applicant argued that as applicant witnessed the prosecutrix and co-accused Suraj in objectionable stage, therefore, he was made accused in the present matter but FIR of the present case was lodged by the father of the victim, therefore, defence taken by the applicant appears to be improbable and merely on the basis of such defence, the statements of the prosecutrix recorded under Sections 161 Cr.P.C. and 164 Cr.P.C. cannot be disbelieved at this stage.

¶15

Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case discussed above, in my view, applicant is not entitled to be released on bail.

¶16

Accordingly, the instant bail application is rejected.

¶17

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.

¶18

Order Date :- 25.8.2023 AK Pandey

¶19

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

Jaislal v. State of U.P. and 3 0THERS

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jaislal v. State of U.P. and 3 0THERS

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

Kamlesh Vs State of U.P.

Smt. Archana Jain Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Faujdar Vs State of U.P.and Another

Smt. Banti Kuchwadiya Vs State of U.P. and Another

Smt. Rajkumari Devi Vs State of U.P.

Rakesh Pal Vs State of U.P.