Dismissed

Sanjeev Saini v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC10 Jul 2023BAIL/2528/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bail application rejected by the court. The applicant, charged with rape under IPC and POCSO Acts, argued innocence and familial dispute. The court held the gravity of the offence precluded bail, directing the trial court to record statements within three months.

What did the court decide?

Bail application rejected; trial court directed to record victim's statement and other witnesses within three months.

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

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:135883

¶2

Court No. - 85

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 2528 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Sanjeev Saini Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Akash Tyagi,Sanjay Kumar Sharma Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Mayank Kumar Jain,J.

¶6

Learned Additional Government Advocate informs that the notice on opposite party no.2 is sufficient.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the entire record.

¶8

This is second application for bail moved on behalf of applicant as the first application for bail was dismissed for want of prosecution by this Court vide order dated 03.01.2023 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 38395 of 2022.

¶9

The present bail application has been filed on behalf of applicant in Case Crime No. 149 of 2019, under Sections 376AB, 452, 506 I.P.C. and Section 5M/6 POCSO Act, Police Station Katghar, District Moradabad with the prayer to enlarge the applicant on bail.

¶10

The prosecution case is that on 16.02.2022, when the daughter of the complainant aged 13 years was alone in the house, the applicant came in the house of the complainant and committed rape with her daughter. At the time of incident the complainant was not present in the house. Thereafter again on 22.02.2022 the applicant came at the house of complainant and committed rape with her daughter on pistol point.

¶11

It is submitted by learned counsel for applicant that applicant is innocent and has not committed any offence as alleged in the first information report. It is further submitted that applicant is the uncle of the daughter of the informant, hence the allegation with regard to the commission rape with the victim is false. There are material contradictions in the statements of the victim recorded under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. The medical report does not corroborate the prosecution version of committing rape by the applicant. The victim in her statement recorded under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. did not mention

¶12

anything about the incident as alleged dated 22.02.2022. It is further submitted that as per medical examination report, the age of victim has been determined to be 15 years. It is further submitted that the applicant and the informant are the family members. The informant wants share in the house of the applicant and on denial, she implicated the applicant falsely. The applicant and the informant are living in the same house along with their other family members, therefore, the commission rape with the victim is not possible. The applicant is languishing in jail since 19.04.2022 having no criminal history and that in case applicant is enlarged on bail, applicant will not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶13

Per contra learned A.G.A. vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that the victim in her statements recorded under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. specifically narrated the incident dated 16.02.2022 and consistently she stated that applicant committed with with her. As per academic certificate the age of the victim is 11-12 years.

¶14

Considering the submissions made by learned counsel for applicant as well as learned A.G.A., gravity of the offence and severity of the punishment, I do not find it to be a fit case for bail.

¶15

Accordingly, the bail application of the applicant, Sanjeev Saini , is hereby rejected .

¶16

However, the trial court is directed to record the statement of victim and other witnesses of fact within three months from today.

¶17

Order Date :- 10.7.2023 Prajapati

¶18

Digitally signed by :- RAMKESH PRAJAPATI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Sanjeev Saini v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sanjeev Saini 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ashish Vs State of U.P.

Shekhar Vs State of U.P. and Another

Sanjay Sonkar Vs State of U.P.

Bade Munna Udainiya @ Rakesh Kumar Vs State of U.P. and Another

Farman Vs State of U.P. and Another

Sonam Yadav and Another Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others