Dismissed

Rashid v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC20 Jul 2023BAIL/25377/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a bail application under Section 439 CrPC, the High Court examined allegations of molestation of a minor. Citing the victim's minority and gravity of offence, the court rejected bail. The trial was directed to be concluded within two weeks.

What did the court decide?

The bail application is rejected. The applicant is directed to seek expeditious disposal of the trial within two weeks.

Rashid Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others — Medical Negligence | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:144846

¶2

Court No. - 69

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 25377 of 2020

¶4

Applicant :- Rashid Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Rajesh Kumar Pandey,Nigamendra Shukla

¶5

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Vinod Singh

¶6

Hon'ble Samit Gopal,J.

¶7

1. List revised.

¶8

Heard Sri Nigamendra Shukla, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Dhirendra Pratap Singh, learned A.G.A. and perused the material on record.

¶9

Sri Vinod Singh, learned counsel for the first informant is not present even when the matter has been taken up in the revised list.

¶10

This bail application under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the applicant Rashid, seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No. 271 of 2020, under Section 376 IPC and 3/4 POCSO Act, registered at P.S. Kotwali Nagar, District Bulandshahar.

¶11

The F.I.R. of the present case was lodged on 3.3.2020, under Section 354 I.P.C. and 8 POCSO Act by Mohd. Akhatar against the applicant alleging therein that his daughter studying in Class-8 is having date of birth 3.6.2004. Rashid (the applicant) residing in the same mohallah used to tease her while going and coming from school. He went to his house many times and persuaded him not to harass his daughter. On 24.2.2020 at about 8.30 a.m. his daughter went to school to give her examination where the applicant near bridge of river caught hold of her and tried to make her sit on motorcycle and enraged her modesty. On shout he ran away.He extended threat to his daughter. His daughter refused to going school.

¶12

Learned counsel for the applicant argued that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is argued that in the F.I.R. there is no allegation of rape being committed on the victim and the same is an afterthought during investigation. It is argued that the trial in the present matter has started in

¶13

which the victim was examined as P.W-1 before the trial court and the first informant was examined as P.W.-2. It is argued that trial has not yet concluded and is still pending. It is argued that the applicant is having no criminal history as stated in para-21 and is in jail since 4.3.2020.

¶14

Per contra, learned AGA opposed the prayer for bail and argued that as per certificate of C.M.O. concerned, the age of the victim has been opined as between 16-17 years and as such she was minor at the time of incident. It is argued that the victim has supported the prosecution case and has levelled allegations of rape against the applicant. It is argued that as such the bail application be rejected.

¶15

After having heard learned counsels for the parties and perusing the records, it is evident that as per the certificate of C.M.O. concerned, the victim is minor. The victim and the first informant have supported the prosecution case in the trial which is evident from the statements as filed in the counter affidavit of the State. The certificate of C.M.O. opining age of the victim has been filed in the short counter affidavit which shows that she is minor.

¶16

Looking into the facts and circumstances of the case as well as nature and gravity of the offence, I am not inclined to release the applicant on bail.

¶17

The bail application is, accordingly, rejected.

¶18

However, since the incident is of the year 2020 and the applicant is the accused, it is provided that the applicant may file an application for expeditious disposal of the trial of the case before the court concerned within two weeks from today, which may as per its load of work, diary and pendency of cases, pass appropriate orders on the same within two weeks thereafter.

¶19

(Samit Gopal,J.)

¶20

Order Date :- 20.7.2023 Naresh

¶21

Digitally signed by :- NARESH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Rashid v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rashid v. State of U.P. and 2 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

Satya Pal Vs State of U.P.

Deepak and Another Vs State of U.P.

Jorbar and Another Vs State of U.P.

Rajnish Kumar Vs State of U.P. and Another

Dileep Vs State of U.P.

Yogesh Kumar Vs State of U.P. and Another