Dismissed

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

Allahabad HC12 Apr 2023BAIL/41995/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Allahabad High Court rejected the applicant's second bail application in a case involving rape and POCSO offences. The court found no material contradiction in the victim's statements, deemed the offence heinous, and found no ground for bail while directing the trial court to conclude the trial expeditiously.

What did the court decide?

Application for enlargement on bail rejected. Trial court directed to conclude trial expediently.

Nayab 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. - 41995 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Nayab Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Mohd. Akbar Shah Alam Khan Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Singh,J.

¶5

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

¶6

By means of this second bail application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C., applicant-Nayab who is involved in Case Crime No. 80 of 2020, under Sections 376, 506 IPC, Sections 3/4 of POCSO Act and Section 67 of I.T. Act, Police Station Kotwali Nagar, District Muzaffarnagar, seeks enlargement on bail during the pendency of trial.

¶7

First bail application of the applicant was rejected by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 02.12.2020 in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 27787 of 2020.

¶8

As per prosecution case in brief, informant who is mother of the victim lodged an F.I.R. on 03.02.2020 for the offence under Sections 376, 506 I.P.C. and Sections 3/4 POCSO Act against Nayab (present applicant) and Parvej with the allegation inter-alia that they used to tease her daughter while going to school. F.I.R. further alleges that about one year back, accused persons enticed away her daughter and took her to the house of relative of the applicantNayab where the applicant has committed rape on her and his friend Parvej made her video. Thereafter on the pretext of said video, they started blackmailing and sexually abused her daughter. After culmination of investigation, charge-sheet has been submitted against the applicant under Sections 376, 506 I.P.C., Sections 3/4 of POCSO Act and Section 67 of I.T. Act.

¶9

The main substratum of argument of learned counsel

¶10

for the applicant is that before the trial court, statement of the victim has been recorded in which she has made an allegation of rape against the applicant supporting the prosecution case but there are several contradictions in her statements recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. as well as before the trial court, therefore, applicant who is languishing in jail since 04.02.2020 is entitled to be released on bail.

¶11

Per contra, learned A.G.A. for the State opposed the prayer for bail of the applicant by contending that the victim is a minor child, aged about 14 years and has supported the prosecution case before the trial court.

¶12

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and examined the matter in its entirety, I find that there is no material contradiction in the statement of the victim recorded before the trial court with regard to the allegation of rape on her by the applicant. The offence is heinous in nature.

¶13

Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case as well as keeping in view the submissions advanced on behalf of parties, gravity of offence, role assigned to applicant and severity of punishment, I do not find any good ground to release the applicant on bail.

¶14

Accordingly, the bail application is rejected .

¶15

It is made clear that the observation contained in the instant order is confined to the issue of bail and shall not affect the merit of the trial.

¶16

However the trial court is directed to make an endeavour to conclude the trial, expeditiously, without granting any unnecessary adjournment to either of the parties in accordance with the provisions of Section 309 Cr.P.C.

¶17

Order Date :- 12.4.2023 Saurabh

¶18

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

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nayab 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

Afsar Vs State of U.P.

Alopi Shankar Shukla Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Kuldeepak Vs State of U.P.

Amit Vs State of U.P.

Shivam Vs State of U.P.

Ashok @ Khemka Vs State of U.P.