Allowed

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

Allahabad HC27 Apr 2023BAIL/28587/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Singh, J. allowed a bail application filed by Shadab in a case involving IPC offences and POCSO Act. The court found the applicant's prima facie case strong due to lack of recovered obscene video and discrepancy in victim's age and statements.

What did the court decide?

Release of applicant Shadab on bail upon furnishing a personal bond and two sureties with specific conditions imposed.

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

¶1

Court No. - 75

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 28587 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Shadab Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Mohd. Farooq,Atul Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Singh,J.

¶5

Despite service of notice upon the informant/opposite party no. 2 and C.W.C./opposite party no. 3, no one has put in appearance on their behalf.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned Additional Government Advocate representing the State.

¶7

The instant bail application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. has been filed on behalf of the applicantShadab with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No. 121 of 2022, under Sections 363, 366, 376, 504, 506 I.P.C., Section 3/4 POCSO Act and Section 3(2)5 of SC/ST Act, Police StationNagina Dehat, District-Bijnor, during the pendency of trial.

¶8

As per the prosecution case in brief, informant who is father of the victim lodged an F.I.R. on 08.05.2022 against unknown person alleging interalia that on 07.05.2022 at about 05:00 pm he along with his wife had gone to their farm and when they returned home, he came to know that his daughter, aged about 19 years, has been enticed away by unknown person.

¶9

It is argued by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is not named in the F.I.R. On 08.05.2022, victim herself returned to her home and thereafter her statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. was recorded in which she had stated interalia that she herself had gone to the forest along with the applicant where physical relation was made between them with their own consent but later on when her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. was recorded on 17.05.2022, she has made improvement by making allegation of rape against the applicant and also stated that the applicant

¶10

had made her video and also made the same viral. It is next submitted that the statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. of the victim was made under the pressure of her parents and during investigation, no such video has been collected by the investigating ofÏcer by which the statement of the victim prima-facie gets falsified. The applicant has no criminal history to his credit and is languishing in jail since 17.05.2022 and in case he is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate in the early disposal of the case.

¶11

Relying upon the statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. as well as education certificate of the victim, learned A.G.A. for the State opposed the prayer for bail of the applicant by contending that the victim is aged about 17 years and 11 months.

¶12

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and examined the matter in its entirety, I find that as per prosecution case, victim is aged about 19 years and as per ossification test report, the radiological age of the victim is about 19 years. Victim, in her statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C., did not make allegation against the applicant but later on she has made improvement in her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. It is also an admitted fact that there is no recovery of any obscene video, therefore, prima-facie applicant has made out case for bail.

¶13

Hence, the bail application is hereby allowed .

¶14

Let the applicant- Shadab , be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions which are being imposed in the interest of justice:-

¶15

(i) That the applicant shall cooperate in the expeditious disposal of the trial and shall regularly attend the court unless inevitable.

¶16

(ii) That the applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the

¶17

case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police ofÏcer or tamper with the evidence.

¶18

(iii) That after his release, the applicant shall not involve in any criminal activity.

¶19

(iv) The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be verified by court concerned before the release of the applicant on bail.

¶20

In case of breach of any of the conditions mentioned above, court concerned will be at liberty to cancel the bail of the applicant.

¶21

Order Date :- 27.4.2023 Saurabh

¶22

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

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shadab 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

Ramanand @ Nanhkooram @ Natepal Vs State of U.P.

Pawan Vs State of U.P.

Raj Kumar @ Raju Vs State of U.P.

Sonu @ Sameer Vs State of U.P.

Pradeep Kushwaha Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Shiv Kumar Pal Vs State of U.P.