Allowed

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

Allahabad HC25 Sept 2023BAIL/39870/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this criminal bail application, the High Court examined a charge under Sections 354, 354-B IPC and POCSO Act. Finding inordinate FIR delay, inconsistent victim statements, and no likelihood of tampering, the court released the applicant on personal bond and two sureties.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail on furnishing personal bond and two sureties each to the satisfaction of the court concerned, subject to specific conditions of appearance and non-tampering.

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

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:185554

¶2

Court No. - 74

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 39870 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Govinda Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Prashant Kumar Lal Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Vivek Varma,J.

¶6

Learned AGA submits that notice of the instant application has been served on the opposite party no.2- informant and opposite party no.4-Child Welfare Committee on 26.08.2023 and 28.08.2023 respectively. However, when the case is taken up no one appears on their behalf nor any counter affidavit has been filed. Receiving endorsements produced by learned AGA, are taken on record.

¶7

Heard Sri V.K.Ojha, Advocate holding brief of Sri Prashant Kumar Lal, learned counsel for the applicant and learned AGA for the State-respondent.

¶8

The instant bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. has been filed with a prayer to enlarge the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 60 of 2023, under Sections 354, 354-B, 506 IPC and Section 7/8 POCSO Act, Police Station Jagner, District Agra, during the pendency of trial.

¶9

Counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case owing to certain other dispute between the parties. The incident is alleged to have occurred on 16.04.2023 and the first information report was lodged on 29.04.2023. The delay in the facts of the present case is fatal to the prosecution case. The applicant did not act inappropriately with the victim. As per the medical report, no external injury was seen. There are contradictions in the statements of the victim under Sections 161 Cr.P.C. and 164 Cr.P.C. Further, material changes have been made in the statement of the victim under Section 164 Cr.P.C. to aggravate the offence and save the failing prosecution case. The applicant is in jail since 30.07.2023 having no criminal history and in case he is enlarged on bail, he will not misuse the said liberty.

¶10

Learned AGA has opposed the prayer for bail but could not

¶11

satisfactorily dispute the aforesaid submissions from the record.

¶12

Having heard counsel for the parties and having perused the record, this Court prima facie finds that there is inordinate delay in lodging the first information report. There are inconsistencies in the statements of the victim under Sections 161 Cr.P.C. and 164 Cr.P.C. The applicant has no criminal antecedents. Further, the applicant has remained confined for almost two months and after submission of the charge-sheet there is no hope of early conclusion of trial, more so when no reasonable apprehension has been brought to the fore by the State that the applicant, if enlarged on bail, would either tamper with the evidence or delay the trial or intimidate the witness, without commenting on the merits of the case, I am of the opinion that the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail.

¶13

Let the applicant Govinda, involved in the aforesaid case be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to the conditions that he:

¶14

(i) shall appear on the date fixed by the trial court;

¶15

(ii) shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence;

¶16

(iii) shall not pressurize the prosecution witnesses.

¶17

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the prosecution shall be at liberty to move bail cancellation application before this Court.

¶18

Order Date :- 25.9.2023 Lbm/-

¶19

Digitally signed by :- LAL BAHADUR MAURYA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Govinda 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

Mohammad Ali Vs State of U.P.

Kamal @ Kalam Vs State of U.P.

Jaypal @ Jagpal Singh Vs State of U.P.

Pannelal Yadav Vs State of U.P.

Tasleem Vs State of U.P.

Mursleem Vs State of U.P.