Allowed

Aman v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC27 Jul 2023BAIL/3031/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this criminal miscellaneous bail application, the Allahabad High Court granted bail to the applicant, Aman, charged under POCSO and IPC sections. The court accepted arguments regarding age discrepancies, delay, and lack of corroboration without adjudicating the merits of the charge, imposing standard bail conditions.

What did the court decide?

Release on bail upon furnishing a personal bond and two sureties with specific conditions to prevent tampering with evidence and ensure appearance in court.

Aman Vs State of U.P. and Another — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:151689

¶2

Court No. - 66

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 3031 of 2022

¶4

Applicant :- Aman Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Shikhar Tandon,Ashok Kumar Singh Bais

¶5

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶6

Hon'ble Ajay Bhanot,J.

¶7

Shri Paritosh Kumar Malviya, learned AGA-I contends that the police authorities in compliance of the directions issued by this Court in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 46998 of 2020 (Junaid Vs State of U.P. and another) reported at 2021 (6) ADJ 511 and with a view to implement the provisions of POCSO Act, 2012 read with POCSO Rules, 2020, have served the bail application upon the victim/legal guardian as well as upon the CWC.

¶8

By means of the bail application the applicant has prayed to be enlarged on bail in Case Crime No.330 of 2021 at Police Station-Rampur Maniharan, DistrictSaharanpur under Sections 342, 376, 354(b), 508 IPC and Section 3/4 and 7/8 of the POCSO Act. The applicant is in jail since 11.11.2021.

¶9

The bail application of the applicant was rejected by the learned trial court on 03.01.2022.

¶10

The following arguments made by Shri Ashok Kumar

¶11

Singh Bai, learned counsel on behalf of the applicant, which could not be satisfactorily refuted by and Shri Paritosh Kumar Malviya, learned AGA-I from the record, entitle the applicant for grant of bail:

¶12

Learned counsel for the applicant contests the minority of the victim as depicted in the prosecution case.

¶13

The victim was wrongly shown as a minor of 17 years in the F.I.R. only to falsely implicate the applicant under the stringent provisions of the POCSO Act and cause his imprisonment.

¶14

Learned counsel for the applicant contests the age of the victim set out in the prosecution case in light of the judgement of this Court in Monish Vs. State of U.P. and others (Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 55026 of 2021) and on the following grounds:

¶15

(i) There are material contradictions in the age of the victim as recorded in various prosecution documents.

¶16

(ii) The age of the victim was incorrectly got registered in the school records by the victim's parents to give her an advantage in life. The school records disclosing her age as 15 years are unreliable.

¶17

(iii) The victim under in her statements under Sections 161 Cr.P.C. and Section 164 Cr.P.C. has stated that she is 17 and 15 years of age respectively.

¶18

(iv) Medico-legal examination (not the age

¶19

determination test) records that the victim is 17 years of age.

¶20

(v) The medical report drawn up to determine the age of the victim opines that she is 18 years of age. The victim is infact a major.

¶21

The delay of seven days in lodgement of the F.I.R. in the facts of the case is fatal to the prosecution case.

¶22

The victim and the applicant had a close association. They often drank together.

¶23

The F.I.R. is the result of opposition of the victim's family to the said relationship and to cause a breach in their relationship.

¶24

The victim in her testimony before the trial court has repudiated the prosecution case and has denied commission of rape by the applicant with her.

¶25

Medical evidence to corroborate commission of rape by the applicant with the victim has not been produced by the prosecution.

¶26

Prosecution evidence does not connect the applicant with the offence.

¶27

The applicant is a law abiding citizen who cooperated with the police investigations and had joined the trial.

¶28

The trial is moving at a snail's pace and is not likely to conclude anytime in the near future. The applicant is not responsible for the delay in the trial.

¶29

Inordinate delay in concluding trial had has led to virtually an indefinite imprisonment of the applicant without there being any credible evidence to implicate him in the offence and violates the rights of the applicant to speedy trial.

¶30

The applicant does not have any criminal history apart from this case.

¶31

The applicant is not a flight risk. The applicant being a law abiding citizen has always cooperated with the investigation and undertakes to join the trial proceedings. There is no possibility of his influencing witnesses, tampering with the evidence or reoffending.

¶32

In the light of the preceding discussion and without making any observations on the merits of the case, the bail application is allowed.

¶33

Let the applicant- Aman 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 below. The following conditions be imposed in the interest of justice:-

¶34

(i) The applicant will not tamper with the evidence or influence any witness during the trial.

¶35

(ii) The applicant will appear before the trial court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted.

¶36

Order Date :- 27.7.2023 Dhananjai

¶37

Digitally signed by :- DHANANJAI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Aman v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Aman v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Arun Sahani Vs State of U.P.

Rajiv Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Chandra Prakash Sharma @ Pappu Sharma Vs State of U.P.

Rajesh Sahani Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Pankaj Chaudhary Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Pawan Hela Vs State of U.P.