Criminal Misc. Bail Application rejected invoking Sections 363, 366, 376 of IPC and Section 4(2) of POCSO Act. Bail denied due to gravity of offences and minor victim despite name discrepancy considerations.
Bail application rejected; applicant to remain in judicial custody.
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:113343
Court No. - 79
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 17170 of 2023
Applicant :- Umakant Saroj Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Rama Shankar Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Mayank Kumar Jain,J.
As per office report, notice upon opposite party no.2 has been served personally but no one appears on his behalf.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
The present bail application has been filed on behalf of applicant in Case Crime No. 36 of 2023, under Sections 363, 366, 376, 506 of IPC and 4 (2) POCSO Act, Police Station Bhadohi, District Bhadohi with the prayer to enlarge the applicant on bail.
It has been argued by learned counsel for the applicant that applicant is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in the present case. The first information report was lodged against one Rajesh Gautam while the name of applicant is Umakant Saroj. In her statements recorded under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C., victim disclosed the name of the applicant Umakant as her teacher and made allegation of sexual assault against him. It is further submitted that father of the victim refused to get her medically examined, therefore, no medical report of the victim is available to corroborate the statements of the victim recorded under Section 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. It is further submitted that applicant is languishing in jail since 27.02.2023 having no criminal history and that in case he is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate in trial.
Per contra, the learned Additional Government Advocate has opposed the prayer for grant of bail by contending that victim was minor at the time of incident, she in her statements recorded under Section 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. made specific allegation against the applicant that he made forceful physical relation with her. As per the F.S.L. report, human blood and semen were found on the clothes of the victim. So far as discrepancy alleged in the name of accused is concerned that
first information report lodged against Rajesh Gautam and the name of applicant is Umakant Saroj, the learned trial court while rejecting the bail application of the applicant observed that surname of present applicant is Rajesh Gautam.
Considering the rival submissions of learned counsel for the parties, nature of allegations, gravity of offence and the fact that victim was minor at the time of incident, she made specific allegation of forceful sexual assault against the applicant in her statements recorded under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C., , I do not find it a fit case for bail. Hence, the bail application is hereby rejected.
Any observation made above shall not be treated as any finding on the merits of the case and shall not prejudice the trial in any manner.
Order Date :- 23.5.2023/AKT
Digitally signed by :- ASHOK KUMAR TRIPATHI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the applicant is a fit case for bail in a case involving serious sexual offences against a minor.
Whether the discrepancy in the name of the accused in the FIR versus the application does not affect the bail application.
Whether the nature of allegations warrants refusal of bail.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Umakant Saroj
State Of U.P.
Mayank Kumar Jain
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
