Allowed

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

Allahabad HC10 May 2023BAIL/14653/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Allahabad High Court allowed a bail application for the accused in a POCSO and IPC case involving allegations of attempted sexual assault on a minor. The court granted bail citing an inordinate delay in lodging the FIR and a corroborative FIR against the victim's brothers for injuring the accused, deciding the matter without expressing an opinion on the case's merits.

What did the court decide?

The applicant be released on bail upon furnishing a personal bond and two sureties in the like amount subject to specific conduct conditions.

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

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:100321

¶2

Court No. - 74

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 14653 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Deepchand Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Bipin Kumar Tripathi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Ashish Pandey

¶5

Hon'ble Sameer Jain,J.

¶6

Heard Sri Bipin Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Ashish Pandey, learned counsel for the informant and Sri Tanay Kumar, learned AGA, for the State.

¶7

The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant with the prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No.339 of 2018 (Special S.T. No. 291 of 2022), under Sections 376, 511, 354-Ka, 354-Gha and 506 IPC and Section 3/4 POCSO Act, Police Station Khajani, District Gorakhpur during pendency of the trial.

¶8

FIR of the present case was lodged on 28.12.2018 on the application moved under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. dated 12.12.2018 against the applicant and according to the FIR in the night of 17/18.9.2018 applicant after entering in the house of the informant tried to outrage her modesty of her daughter aged about 17 years on the point of knife and her daughter caused injuries to his male organ and after hearing shrieks of her daughter family members arrived and they caught the applicant and thereafter police was called and took the applicant and thereafter Police detained the informant and her family members and the Police did not lodge her report.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that entire story narrated by the informant in the FIR is totally false and baseless and actually applicant neither ever entered in the house

¶10

of informant nor he ever tried to outrage the modesty of her daughter. He further submits that the alleged incident is said to have taken place in the intervening night of 17/18.9.2018 but FIR of the present case was lodged on 28.12.2018, i.e., after about more than 3 months on the application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. and even application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. was moved on 12.12.2018, i.e., almost after 3 months.

¶11

He further submits that this inordinate delay in moving the application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. itself shows that entire story mentioned in the FIR is totally false.

¶12

He further submits that actually family members of the informant forcibly took the applicant in the house on 18.9.2018 and thereafter they amputated his penis and in this regard on the same day, i.e., 18.9.2018 at about 16.04 hours mother of applicant lodged FIR against the son of the informant under Sections 323 and 326 IPC and after investigation charge sheet against the sons of informant was filed on 14.11.2018 and when informant came to know about this fact then only to save skins of her sons, she on 12.12.2018 moved an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. against the applicant and this fact clearly suggests that applicant has been falsely implicated in the present matter.

¶13

He further submits that injury report of applicant has been appended as Annexure-8 to the affidavit filed in support of the present application which shows that his penis was amputated. He further submits that in the FIR it is mentioned that victim is around 17 years of age and according to her educational certificate she is more than 17 years but according to the Doctor her radiological age is around 25 years and this fact suggests that victim of the present case is a major girl and

¶14

it appears that applicant and victim were having good relationship and applicant and victim were caught by her family members and thereafter brothers of the victim caused injuries to the applicant and thereafter FIR was lodged against them and charge sheet was submitted against them and only then application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. was moved totally on the basis of false and frivolous allegations.

¶15

He further submits that although the present case is of the year 2018 but as applicant was in continuous medical treatment, therefore, during investigation Investigating Officer after recording the reasons did not make his arrest and applicant after treatment was discharged from AIIMS Delhi on 2.1.2023 and thereafter he surrendered before the court concerned.

¶16

He further submits that applicant is not having any previous criminal history and in the present matter he is in jail since 20.3.2023.

¶17

Per contra, learned AGA as well as learned counsel for the informant opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that victim in her both the statements recorded under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. made allegation of rape against the applicant. They further submitted that there is also amputation of the penis of applicant which strengthen the allegation made against the applicant in the FIR and in the statements of the witnesses but they could not dispute the fact that FIR of the present case was lodged after 3 months on the application moved under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. and even application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. was moved almost after about 3 months.

¶18

They further could not dispute the fact that an FIR was lodged by mother of applicant against the sons of the informant on 18.9.2018 under Sections 323 and 326 IPC with regard to

¶19

amputation of penis of applicant in which on 14.11.018 charge sheet has been submitted and application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. was moved after submission of charge sheet.

¶20

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

¶21

Although there are serious allegations against the applicant that he after entering in the house of informant, tried to outrage the modesty of the daughter of informant and was also initially caught red handed and victim also amputated his penis but FIR of the present case was lodged after 3 months on the application under Section 156(3) and even application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. was moved on 12.12.2018, i.e., almost after 3 months.

¶22

Further, from the record it reflects that on 18.9.2018 mother of applicant lodged FIR against the brothers of victim under Sections 323 and 326 IPC with regard to amputation of his penis and on 14.11.2018 charge sheet has been filed against them, i.e., before the filling of application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C.

¶23

Further, allegation against the applicant is to outrage the modesty of victim and not to commit rape, however, he has been challaned under Section 376 and 511 IPC, i.e., for attempt to commit rape.

¶24

Therefore, from the discussions made above, in my view, applicant is entitled to be released on bail.

¶25

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

¶26

Let the applicant- Deep Chand be released on bail in the

¶27

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:-

¶28

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

¶29

(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.

¶30

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

¶31

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.

¶32

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.

¶33

Order Date :- 10.5.2023 SKM

¶34

Digitally signed by :- SHRAVANA KUMAR MISHRA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Deepchand 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Manisha Vs State of U.P.

Anil Singh Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Mahfooz Vs State of U.P.

Faheem Khan Vs State of U.P.

Matelu Chaudhary Vs State of U.P.

Durgesh Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others