Dismissed¶13

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

Allahabad HC29 May 2023BAIL/20524/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Second bail application under Section 439 CrPC rejected (Allahabad HC, 29.5.2023, N.C. 2023:AHC:119588, Bail Application No. 20524 of 2023): prolonged detention since 25.01.2019 with unconcluded trial held not a good ground where the minor victim supported the prosecution, three prosecution witnesses examined, and Section 376AB IPC prescribes minimum twenty years' sentence; offences under Sections 363, 366, 376AB, 342 IPC and Sections 3/4 POCSO Act, P.S. Vijay Nagar, Ghaziabad; first bail rejected 24.08.2021 (No. 2792 of 2020); trial-expedition direction following Alakh Alok Srivastava Vs. Union of India, (2018) 17 SCC 291.

What did the court decide?

Bail application rejected: the trial is proceeding and, apart from the detention period, no good ground was put forth to release the applicant on bail. ¶12

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

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶13

Issue for consideration

Whether the applicant should be enlarged on bail during the pendency of trial, his sole ground being detention since 25.01.2019 with the trial unconcluded, in a case under Sections 363, 366, 376AB, 342 IPC and Sections 3/4 POCSO Act.

¶9

Court's answer

Bail application rejected: the trial is proceeding and, apart from the detention period, no good ground was put forth to release the applicant on bail.

¶12

Ratio / Principle

The victim, a minor child, has supported the prosecution case before the trial Court, which weighed against grant of bail.

¶12

Key takeaways

The applicant is prosecuted under Section 376AB IPC, which carries a minimum sentence of twenty years; the gravity of this offence weighed against bail.ratio¶12
The observations in the order are confined to the issue of bail and shall not affect the merit of the trial.obiter¶14
Considering the detention period, the trial Court is directed to make an endeavour to conclude the trial in accordance with the Apex Court's directions in Alakh Alok Srivastava.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court (Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Singh, J.; Order Date 29.5.2023; Neutral Citation 2023:AHC:119588) rejected a second bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. by applicant-Rohit, accused in Case Crime No. 61 of 2019 under Sections 363, 366, 376AB, 342 IPC and Section 3/4 POCSO Act, P.S. Vijay Nagar, District Ghaziabad. His first bail application had been rejected on 24.08.2021 in Bail Application No. 2792 of 2020. The sole ground urged was detention since 25.01.2019 with the trial unconcluded; the State pointed out that the minor victim had supported the prosecution and three prosecution witnesses had been examined. The Court held that, the trial proceeding, and the offence under Section 376AB IPC carrying a minimum sentence of twenty years, there was no good ground to release the applicant on bail. Observations were confined to the bail issue. The trial Court was directed to endeavour to conclude the trial in accordance with the Apex Court's directions in Alakh Alok Srivastava Vs. Union of India, (2018) 17 SCC 291, and the Office was directed to send a copy of the order to the informant/mother of the victim within a week.

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:119588

¶2

Court No. - 75

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 20524 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Rohit Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Mohammad Arshad Khan Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Singh,J.

¶6

1- Heard learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned Additional Government Advocate representing the State.

¶7

2- By means of this second bail application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C., applicant-Rohit, who is involved in Case Crime No. 61 of 2019, under Sections 363, 366, 376AB, 342 of I.P.C. and Section 3/4 POCSO Act, Police Station-Vijay Nagar, DistrictGhaziabad, seeks enlargement on bail during the pendency of trial.

¶8

3- First bail application of the applicant was rejected by this Court vide order dated 24.08.2021 in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 2792 of 2020.

¶9

4- The main substratum of argument of learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant has been languishing in jail since 25.01.2019, but till date, his trial has not been concluded, therefore, he may be enlarged on bail.

¶10

5- On the other hand, learned A.G.A. for the State opposed the prayer for bail of the applicant by contending that before the trial Court the statement of the victim has been recorded in which she has supported the prosecution case and three prosecution witnesses have been examined before the trial Court, therefore, considering the nature of case bail application of the applicant is not liable to be allowed.

¶11

6- Having heard learned counsel for the parties and examined the matter in its entirety, I find that except the detention period of the applicant as noted above, no other point has been put forth by the learned counsel for the applicant. It is not in

¶12

dispute that the victim, who is minor child has supported the prosecution case before the trial Court. The applicant is being prosecuted for the offence under Section 376AB of I.P.C. also, in which minimum sentence of twenty years has been provided. The trial is proceeding, therefore, I do not find any good ground to release the applicant on bail.

¶13

7- Accordingly, the bail application is rejected .

¶14

8- It is made clear that the observation contained in the instant order is confined to the issue of bail and shall not affect the merit of the trial.

¶15

9- However, considering the detention period of the applicant, the trial Court is directed to make an endeavour to conclude the trial of the applicant in accordance with the directions of the Apex Court in the case of Alakh Alok Srivastava Vs. Union of India and others, (2018) 17 SCC 291 .

¶16

10- OfÏce is directed to send the copy of this order to the informant/mother of the victim of this case within a week.

¶17

Order Date :- 29.5.2023 Kashifa

¶18

Digitally signed by :- KASHIFA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sagum Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Mukendra Nishad Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Mahendra Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Munni Devi Vs State of U.P.

Rajendra Singh Vs State of U.P.

Subhash@ Subhash Yadav Vs State of U.P.