Allowed

Jepi Alias Rajit Kumar v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC13 Jul 2023BAIL/24115/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Allahabad High Court allowed the bail application of an accused facing charges of rape and administering poison under IPC and POCSO Act. The court concluded that the delay of over four months in lodging the FIR without a plausible explanation suggested a false version of events, entitling the applicant to bail.

What did the court decide?

The applicant was released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court.

Jepi Alias Rajit Kumar Vs State of U.P. and… — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:140665

¶2

Court No. - 70

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 24115 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Jepi Alias Rajit Kumar Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Yogendra Pati Tripathi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Sameer Jain,J.

¶6

Sri Pradeep Kumar, learned AGA for the State apprised the Court that on 19.05.2023 notice has been served to the informant of the case. Despite service of notice, none appeared on behalf of the informant.

¶7

Heard Sri Yogendra Pati Tripathi, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Pradeep Kumar, learned AGA for the Staterespondent.

¶8

The instant application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 348 of 2022, under Sections 323, 376, 506 IPC & 3/4 POCSO Act, Police Station- Thathiya, District- Kannauj, during pendency of the trial in the court below.

¶9

FIR of the present case was lodged on 08.11.2022 against the applicant and one unknown person and according to the FIR, applicant about 3-4 months before committed rape with the daughter of the informant aged about 13 years and on 2nd November, he forcibly administered some medicines to her and after taking medicine, she received serious bleeding.

¶10

Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that FIR of the present case was lodged against the applicant after about four months from the date of alleged incident of rape and this fact itself shows that story narrate by the informant in the FIR and by the victim in her both the statements recorded under Sections 161 Cr.P.C. and 164 Cr.P.C. appears to be totally false and baseless.

¶11

He further submitted that although, as per the allegation, on 2nd November, applicant forcibly administered some medicines to the victim and after consuming the same, she suffered with excessive bleeding but except the bald and verbal allegation, there is no

¶12

evidence on record in this regard and this fact further suggests that entire story of forcibly administration of the medicines by the applicant to the victim is also false and baseless.

¶13

He further submitted that actually informant used illegal electricity and applicant made his complaint to the SDO concerned and only due to this reason, he has been made accused in the present matter. He further submitted that applicant is not having any criminal history and he is in jail since 11.11.2022 i.e. for last about more than 8 months.

¶14

Per contra, learned AGA opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that at the time of incident victim was around 14 years' old and she made allegation of rape against the applicant in her both the statements recorded under Sections 161 Cr.P.C. and 164 Cr.P.C. but could not dispute the fact that FIR of the present case was lodged after about four months.

¶15

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case.

¶16

Although, from the record, it reflects that victim i.e. prosecutrix of the case was about 14 years' old at the time of alleged incident and she also made allegation of rape against the applicant in her both the statements recorded under Sections 161 Cr.P.C. and 164 Cr.P.C. but FIR of the present case was lodged after about more than four months and no plausible explanation has been given in this regard, therefore, in my view, applicant is entitled to be released on bail.

¶17

Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the instant bail application is allowed .

¶18

Let the applicant- Jepi Alias Rajit Kumar be released on bail in the aforesaid case on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:-

¶19

(i) The applicant shall appear before the trial court on the dates fixed, unless his personal presence is exempted.

¶20

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

¶21

(iii) The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal and anti-social activity.

¶22

In case of breach of any of the above condition, the prosecution will be at liberty to move an application before this Court for cancellation of the bail of the applicant.

¶23

It is clarified that the observations made herein are limited to the facts brought in by the parties pertaining to the disposal of bail application and the said observations shall have no bearing on the merits of the case during trial.

¶24

Order Date :- 13.7.2023

¶25

KK Patel

¶26

Digitally signed by :- KRISHN KANT PATEL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Jepi Alias Rajit Kumar v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jepi Alias Rajit Kumar 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

Akash Vs State of U.P.

Phool Miyan Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Rajindra Vs State of U.P.

Naseem Vs State of U.P.

Ankit Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Ramnayan Rajbhar Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others