Allowed

Ranjeet Nishad v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC12 Apr 2023BAIL/13877/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bail application allowed considering conflicting medical age reports and victim's consistent statement of marriage, subject to bail conditions.

What did the court decide?

Release on bail on furnishing personal bond and two heavy sureties with standard conditions against tampering and intimidating witnesses.

What the court decided

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

¶1

Court No. - 79 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 13877 of 2023 Applicant :- Ranjeet Nishad Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Harish Kumar Tripathi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Aditya Kumar Rai,Dhirendra Kumar Verma,Diwakar Mishra

¶2

Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.

¶3

List has been revised.

¶4

Heard Shri Harish Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri Diwakar Mishra, learned counsel for the informant as well as Shri V.K.S. Parmar, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶5

Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No.220 of 2022, under Sections 363, 366, 376 I.P.C. and 3/4 POCSO Act, Police Station Rudrapur, District Deoria, during the pendency of trial.

¶6

As per prosecution story, the minor daughter of the informant, aged about 17 years, is said to have been enticed away by the applicant on 28.06.2022 at about 7:00 PM. The victim is stated to have taken alongwith her a golden chain and Rs.20,000/-.

¶7

Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that the applicant is absolutely innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. The victim is a consenting party. The FIR is delayed by about 16 days and there is no explanation of the said delay caused. As per ossification test report of the victim, her age was 19 years. As per school certificate, her age is stated to be 17 years 6 months and six days. To buttress his arguments, learned counsel has placed reliance on the statement of the victim recorded u/s 164 Cr.P.C., whereby she had stated that she had gone by train with the applicant out of her own sweet will and had married him in Gujarat and wants to live with him during rest of her life. Several other submissions have been made on behalf of the applicant to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against him. The circumstances which, as per counsel, led to the false implication of the applicant have also been touched upon at length. There is no criminal history of the applicant. The applicant is languishing in jail since 20.10.2022. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶8

Per contra, learned counsel for the informant and learned A.G.A. have vehemently opposed the bail application on the ground that the victim was minor and below her age of consent,

¶9

as such her statement cannot be taken note of.

¶10

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, the evidence on record, taking into consideration the fact that the age of the victim was found to be 19 years in the ossification test report and she has categorically stated that she had married the applicant, and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed.

¶11

Let the applicant- Ranjeet Nishad involved in aforementioned case crime number be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two heavy sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions.

¶12

(i) The applicant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.

¶13

(ii). The applicant will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness.

¶14

(iii) The applicant will appear before the trial court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted.

¶15

(iv) The applicant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which he is accused, or suspected of the commission of which he is suspected.

¶16

(v) 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.

¶17

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail. Identity, status and residence proof of the applicant and sureties be verified by the court concerned before the bonds are accepted.

¶18

It is made clear that observations made in granting bail to the applicant shall not in any way affect the learned trial Judge in forming his independent opinion based on the testimony of the witnesses.

¶19

(Krishan Pahal, J.)

¶20

Order Date :- 12.4.2023 Ravi Kant

¶21

Digitally signed by :- RAVI KANT High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Ranjeet Nishad v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Ranjeet Nishad 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

Muzammil Vs State of U.P.

Rizwan Vs State of U.P.

Basanti Vs State of U.P.

Ramesh Vs State of U.P.

Gaigy Begam Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Reeta Devi Vs State of U.P.