In a bail application under Sections 376D IPC and POCSO, the court rejected the petition filed by the accused against a minor victim. The judge held that specific allegations of rape in the FIR and statements made before the Magistrate precluded any benefit from minor discrepancies or alleged prior disputes.
The bail application is rejected.
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.
Court No. - 74
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 18156 of 2023 Applicant :- Chhotu Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Mahendra Pratap Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Sameer Jain,J.
4 FIR of the present case was lodged on 17.9.2022 against applicant and co-accused Chunnilal Baba and according to the FIR, applicant committed rape with the daughter of the informant about five days before and thereafter co-accused Chunnilal Baba threaten the informant.
recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and 164 Cr.P.C. then she stated that applicant committed rape with her on 8.9.2022 i.e. about nine days before from the lodgement of the FIR and this fact clearly suggests that entire allegation of rape against the applicant is totally false and baseless.
Order Date :- 24.4.2023/ KK Patel
Digitally signed by :- KRISHN KANT PATEL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the applicant is entitled to bail in a case involving rape under Sections 376D IPC and POCSO Act.
Whether discrepancies in the victim's statements or the existence of prior disputes justify granting bail.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Chhotu
State Of U.P.
Sameer Jain
Krishn Kant Patel
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
