Allowed

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

Allahabad HC25 Jul 2023BAIL/23820/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal bail application regarding allegations of sexual assault on a child, the court allowed bail after noting a change in the victim's statement under Section 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. The court held that prima facie the case falls under Section 7/8 of the POCSO Act involving assault, not Sections 9/10, and no criminal antecedents were found against the applicant.

What did the court decide?

The applicant Amir was released on bail in FIR/Case Crime No. 270/2023 upon furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties of the like amount each, subject to specific conditions.

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

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:149001

¶2

Court No. - 75

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 23820 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Amir Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Rishabh Agarwal Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Kanchan Chaudhary

¶5

Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J.

¶6

1. Heard Sri Rishabh Agarwal, learned counsel for the applicant, Ms. Kanchan Chaudhary, learned counsel for the informant as well as learned A.G.A. and perused the record.

¶7

2 . The FIR in question was lodged against applicant alleging that the applicant, took away the daughter of the informant and touched her misappropriately and took out her clothes. As soon as he saw certain ladies coming he fled away from the spot. A similar statement was made under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and in the statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., the victim stated that as soon as her grandmother came the applicant feld away from the spot in question. She also alleged that she was touched inappropriately. In view of the allegations levelled coupled with the fact that age of the victim is around 8 years, the applicant was implicated under Section 354B, read with Section 504 read with 506 IPC read with 9/10 of the POCSO Act and 3(2)(Va) of the SC/ST Act.

¶8

3 . The submissions of the counsel for the applicant is that there was a change in the version under Section 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. inasmuch as, the victim took the name of her grandmother in the statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C., whereas, no such averment was made in the statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. He further argues that the applicant is falsely implicated with the offence in question. The applicant

¶9

is in custody since 15.04.2023 and has no criminal antecedents.

¶10

Learned counsel for the informant opposes the bail application by arguing that the victim is about 8 years of age and the manner in which the offence is said to have been committed, deserves severe punishment and thus, the applicant should not be enlarged on bail.

¶11

4. Learned A.G.A. vehemently opposed the bail prayer.

¶12

5. Considering the evidence at this stage, prima facie even if the allegations are treated to be correct for the sake of argument, the offence would clearly fall within the scope of Section 7 which defines sexual assault and the punishment of which is under Section 8 for a period of three years up to five years and not under Section 9/10. The punishment prescribes for offence under Section 354D is for a period of three years to seven years. In view of the averments as contained in the FIR and statements recorded under Section 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. and in view of prima facie findings recorded hereinabove, this is a clear case of bail for applicant more so, there is no criminal antecedent. There is nothing on record to demonstrate that the applicant if enlarged on bail, would in any way adversely affect the trial and without expressing any opinion on merit, I am of the view that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail.

¶13

6. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed .

¶14

7. Let the applicant Amir be released on bail in FIR/ Case Crime No. 270/2023, under Section 354(kha), 504, 506 IPC and 9/10 POCSO Act and 3(2)(5a) SC/ST Act, P.S. Sikohabad, District Firozabad, on his furnishing personal bonds and two reliable sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:

¶15

(a) The applicant shall execute a bond to undertake to attend the hearings;

¶16

(b) The applicant shall not commit any offence similar to the offence of which he is accused or suspected of the commission; and

¶17

(c) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any 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 to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶18

Order Date :- 25.7.2023 S.A.

¶19

Digitally signed by :- SALMAN AHMAD High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Amir 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

Shiv Prakash Yadav @ Prakash Yadav Vs State of U.P.

Prakash Kori Vs State of U.P.

Alwar Vs State of U.P. and Another

Smt. Rekha Rajpoot Vs State of U.P.

Nikki @ Bagga Vs State of U.P.

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