Allowed

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

Allahabad HC13 Jun 2023BAIL/19360/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court examined a bail application in a rape and POCSO case. Counsel argued the prosecutrix was of major age based on medical report discrepancies and lack of physical injuries, implying consent. The Court, without deciding merits, found it a fit case for bail.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail by furnishing personal bond and two sureties, subject to conditions of not tampering with evidence and attending court.

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

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:126354

¶2

Court No. - 65

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 19360 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Amardeep Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Sheetala Prasad Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Vipin Chandra Dixit,J.

¶6

Heard Sri Sheetala Prasad Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶7

Learned A.G.A. has informed the Court that notice has already been served upon informant but despite service of notice no one has put in appearance on behalf of the informant.

¶8

It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that applicant is absolutely innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case due to some ulterior motive. It is next submitted that the prosecutrix as per report of C.M.O., dated 24.3.2023 is less than eighteen years of age. The law is settled that the margin of error in ascertaining the age by radiological examination is two years on either side and hence the possibility of the prosecutrix being major cannot be ruled out. He further submits that although the prosecutrix in her statements recorded under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. has stated that on the assurance of marriage the applicant has developed physical relations with her but her medical report does not corroborate the allegation of rape. No marks of violence, injury or sexual assault were found on her body. He also submits that at the time of incident the prosecutrix was major and she was in consensual relationship with the applicant and she developed physical relations with the applicant on her own sweet will, hence no case of rape is made out against the applicant. It is lastly submitted that the applicant has no previous criminal history and there is no possibility of fleeing away from the judicial process or tampering with the witnesses and in case, the applicant is enlarged on bail, the applicant shall not misuse the liberty of bail. The applicant is in jail since 23.3.2023.

¶9

Learned A.G.A. for the State vehemently opposed the prayer of bail. However, he does not dispute the aforesaid facts.

¶10

Considering the submissions of learned counsel for the parties,

¶11

from perusal of the record and considering the complicity of accused, severity of punishment as well as totality of facts and circumstances, at this stage, without commenting on the merits of the case, I find it a fit case for bail. The bail application is allowed .

¶12

Let the applicant Amardeep be released on bail in Case Crime No. 63 of 2023, under Sections 323, 354Kha, 363, 366, 376(3), 506 I.P.C. and section 3/4 Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, P.S. Khesraha, district-Siddharthanagar, on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Court concerned, subject to the following conditions:

¶13

(i) The applicant will not tamper with prosecution evidence and will not harm or harass the victim / complainant in any manner whatsoever.

¶14

(ii) The applicant will abide by the orders of the court, will attend the court on every date and will not delay the disposal of trial in any manner whatsoever.

¶15

(iii) The applicant will not indulge in any unlawful activity.

¶16

(iv) The applicant will not misuse the liberty of bail in any manner whatsoever.

¶17

The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be verified by the court concerned and in case of breach of any of the conditions mentioned above, court concerned will be at liberty to cancel the bail and send the applicant to prison.

¶18

Order Date :- 13.6.2023 Faridul

¶19

Digitally signed by :- FAREEDUL HASAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Amardeep 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

Kuldeep Vs State of U.P. and Another

Tarun @ Bhoora Vs State of U.P.

Naseemuddin Vs State of U.P. and Another

Guman and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Mohan Vs State of U.P.

Prince Pal @ Aanchal @ Gorilla Vs State of U.P.