Criminal Misc. Bail Application filed by Neeraj in a case involving abduction and sexual offence under IPC and POCSO Act. Bail application was rejected by the High Court dismissing the prayer without expressing an opinion on the merits of the case.
Bail application rejected; applicant remains in custody.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 86
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 38628 of 2022
Applicant :- Neeraj Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Arun Kumar Tripathi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Ashok Kumar Singh
Hon'ble Mayank Kumar Jain,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State.
The present bail application has been filed on behalf of applicant in Case Crime No. 751 of 2021, under Sections 363, 376 I.P.C. and 5 (1) /6 POCSO Act, Police Station Kotawali Kannauj, District Kannauj with the prayer to enlarge the applicant on bail.
It is argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that applicant is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in the present case. He further submitted that in her statement under section 161 Cr. P.C. the victim did not made any allegation against the applicant with regard to abduction and committed sexual offence. He also submitted that victim in her statement under section 164 Cr. P.C. has introduced the name of another person as Shelu Yadav and made all the allegation against Shelu Yadav. It is next submitted that as per medical examination, the age of victim is determined as 16 years. In her statement under section 161 Cr. P.C. victim has stated that she accompanied with the applicant at her own accord.
It has been further submitted that applicant is languishing in jail since 27.04.2022 having no criminal and that in case the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate in trial.
Per contra, learned A.G.A. assisted by learned counsel for the informant opposed the prayer for bail and argued that date of birth of the victim is 08.07.2007 as per school certificate and she is 14 years 2 month and 29 days on the date of occurrence. He also submitted that pregnancy of the victim was confirmed during her medical examination. It is pointed out that during hearing of bail application before the learned trial court, the victim was summoned and has stated that under the pressure made by the applicant Neeraj, she had given her statement under section 161 Cr. P.C. as recorded therefore, applicant is not
entitled for bail.
Considering the submissions of learned counsel for the parties, nature of allegations, gravity of offence, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court is of the opinion that no case for grant of bail is made out. Hence, the bail application is hereby rejected.
It is clarified that the observations, if any, made in this order are strictly confined to the disposal of this bail application and must not be construed to have any reflection on the ultimate merits of the case.
Order Date :- 28.1.2023 T.S.
Digitally signed by :- TRIBHUWAN SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the applicant is entitled to bail in a case involving abduction and sexual offence under POCSO Act and IPC?
Whether the medical report and victim's statement support the grant of bail in light of allegations of coercion?
Neeraj
State Of U.P.
3 Others
Mayank Kumar Jain
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
