Single judge allowed bail to applicant Naushad accused under Section 376 IPC and POCSO Act, noting discrepancies in prosecutrix statements and age, finding no compelling circumstances for continued custody despite the gravity of the offence.
Released on bail with furnishing of personal bond and two sureties under specific conditions.
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.
Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:180768
Court No. - 65
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 23852 of 2023
Applicant :- Naushad Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Lal Behari Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Rajeev Giri
Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.
enlarged on bail. He has then contended that the prosecutrix in her statement under Section 161 has not supported the F.I.R. However, the prosecutrix in her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. has resiled from her previous statement. The learned counsel for applicant submits that even though an F.I.R. is not the encyclopaedia of the prosecution case, but it must disclose the basic prosecution case. The statement of the prosecutrix recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. is beyond the basic prosecution case. As such the same amounts to exaggeration, embellishment and contradiction which remains unexplained upto this staged. Attention of the court was then invited to the medical opinion wherein the age of the prosecutrix has been determined to be 19 years regarding the age of the prosecutrix. The prosecution has not collected any document in consonance with the provisions of Section 94 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection) Act 2015, wherein the date of birth has been recorded and on basis thereof it could be concluded that the prosecutrix was below 18 years of age. On the above premise, it is thus urged that no offence as complained of can be said to be made out against applicant.
misuse the liberty of bail and shall co-operate with the trial.
relied upon by the prosecution against applicant stands crystallised, yet in spite of above no such circumstance could be pointed out by the learned A.G.A. necessitating the custodial arrest of applicant during the pendency of trial, the clean antecedents of applicant, the period of incarceration undergone by applicant but without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, applicant has made out a case for bail
(i) Applicant will not tamper with prosecution evidence.
(ii) Applicant will abide the orders of court, will attend the court on every date and will not delay the disposal of trial in any manner whatsoever.
(iii) Applicant will not indulge in any unlawful activities.
(iv) Applicant will not misuse the liberty of bail in any manner whatsoever.
Order Date :- 19.9.2023/YK
Digitally signed by :- YASHWANT KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the accused should be enlarged on bail in a rape and POCSO case where the prosecutrix's age and modesty allegations in the Section 164 statement contradict the FIR and Section 161 statement.
Whether the discrepancy in the prosecutrix's statements and lack of medical evidence regarding modesty vitiates the prosecution case.
Whether compelling circumstances exist to deny bail during the pendency of the trial.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Phool Singh Vs. State of Madhya PradeshExplained¶17
Phool Singh Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2022) 2 SCC 74 · Who else cites this
3 provisions across 2 enactments
Naushad
State Of U.P.
Rajeev Misra
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
