Allowed

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

Allahabad HC8 May 2023BAIL/17967/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal bail application under Sections 363 and 376 IPC and POCSO Act, the Court allowed the applicant's bail. The Court noted the petitioner lacked prior criminal history, the victim did not allege rape in her initial statement despite subsequent allegations, and she consistently stated the relationship was consensual. Bail was granted on a personal bond with two sureties.

What did the court decide?

Released on bail furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount with conditions to appear in court, not tamper with evidence, and refrain from criminal activity.

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

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:97638

¶2

Court No. - 74

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 17967 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Gopal Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Suresh Singh,Ritesh Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Shyam Singh Somvanshi

¶5

Hon'ble Sameer Jain,J.

¶6

None appeared on behalf of the informant. However, learned AGA, for the State, are present.

¶7

Heard Sri Ritesh Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and Dr. S.B.Maurya, learned AGA-I, for the State.

¶8

The instant application has been moved on behalf of the applicant to release him on bail in Case Crime No. 557 of 2022, under Sections 363 and 376 IPC and Section 3/4 POCSO Act, Police Station Kalan District Shahjahanpur during pendency of the trial.

¶9

FIR of the present case was lodged against the applicant under Section 363 IPC and according to the FIR, applicant enticed away the minor daughter of the informant aged about 16-17 years.

¶10

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that entire allegation against the applicant is totally false and baseless and applicant neither enticed or abducted the minor daughter of the informant and actually daughter of the informant according to her own wish had gone along with applicant and this fact is evident from her statement recorded under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C.

¶11

He further submits that in the statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. victim did not make any allegation of rape and only

¶12

stated that she had gone along with applicant and when her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. was recorded then although she stated that she had gone according to her own wish along with applicant but also stated that applicant committed rape with her and this fact clearly suggests that allegation of rape made by victim against the applicant in her subsequent statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. was made under the pressure of the informant.

¶13

He further submits that even as per the informant, victim is around 17 years of age and according to her educational certificate she is around 16 years old. However, as per CMO report her radiological age is about 18 years, therefore, it appears that she is major girl aged about 18 years.

¶14

He next submits that applicant is not having any previous criminal hisotry and he is in jail in the present matter since 22.12.2022.

¶15

Per contra, learned AGA although opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the fact that victim in her statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. did not make any allegation of rape against the applicant and although in her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. she made allegation of rape against the applicant but also stated that she according to her own wish had gone along with applicant and further as per educational certificate the age of the victim is around 17 years.

¶16

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

¶17

From the perusal of the educational certificate of the victim it appears that she is around 17 years of age and although she made allegation of rape against the applicant in her

¶18

statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. but she did not make any allegation of rape in her statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and in both the statements under Section 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. she categorically stated that she according to her own wish had gone along with applicant.

¶19

Applicant is not having any criminal history and he is in jail in the present matter since 22.12.2022.

¶20

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

¶21

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

¶22

Let the applicant- Gopal 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:-

¶23

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

¶24

(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.

¶25

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

¶26

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.

¶27

It is clarified that the observations made herein are

¶28

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. Order Date :- 8.5.2023 SKM

¶29

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

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gopal 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

Anuj Kumar Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Sunil Rajbhar Vs State of U.P.

Shokindra @ kala Vs State of U.P. though it Principal Secretary (Home)

Vinod Maurya Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Madan Vs State of U.P.

Mohd. Nasif Vs State of U.P.