Dismissed¶18

Bishambhar Nishad v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC4 Oct 2023BAIL/42134/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Keywords: bail application rejected; CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. 42134 of 2023; Case Crime No. 149 of 2023; Sections 363, 366, 328, 376, 506 IPC; Section 5/6 POCSO Act; minor victim aged about 15 years; victim four months pregnant; statements under Section 161 and Section 164 Cr.P.C.; married applicant; Police Station Pipiganj, District Gorakhpur; applicant in jail since 24.4.2023; Justice Sameer Jain; order dated 4.10.2023; Neutral Citation 2023:AHC:191339.

What did the court decide?

Considering that the applicant is a married man, the victim made an allegation of rape against him, in her statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. she stated that she loved the applicant, and before the doctor she stated that three months earlier the applicant committed rape with her, the applicant is not entitled to be released on bail. ¶18

Bishambhar Nishad Vs State of U.P. and 3… — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:191339

¶2

Court No. - 70

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 42134 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Bishambhar Nishad Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Sanjay Shukla Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Sameer Jain,J.

¶6

Sri Manoj Kumar learned Brief Holder for the State apprise the Court, notice has been served to the informant on 1.9.2023.

¶7

Despite service of notice none appeared on behalf of the informant.

¶8

Heard Sri Sanjay Shukla, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Manoj Kumar, learned Brief Holder for the State and perused the record.

¶9

The instant application has been filed on behalf fo the applicant with the prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No. 149 of 2023, under Sections 363, 366, 328, 376, 506 IPC and Section 5/6 POCSO Act, Police Station Pipiganj, District Gorakhpur, during pendency of the trial.

¶10

F.I.R. of the present case was lodged against applicant and according to the F.I.R. applicant enticed away the sister of the informant aged about 15 years for the purpose of performing marriage with her.

¶11

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that entire allegation made against applicant is totally false and although victim under the pressure of the informant in her statement under Sections 161 Cr.P.C. and 164 Cr.P.C. stated against the applicant and according to her, applicant had taken her on 20.4.2023 but after four days when her medical was conducted then she was found four months pregnant and this clearly suggests that actually victim was having affair with some other person and subsequently due to dispute applicant has been made accused in the present matter.

¶12

He further submits actually applicant is resident of the same

¶13

village and he is a married man and a property dispute is pending between the informant and the applicant and only due to this reason the applicant has been made accused in the present matter.

¶14

It is further submitted that the victim in her statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. although stated that she loved the applicant but never stated that applicant made physical relationship with her but when her statement was recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. then she changed her version and stated that on 20.4.2023 applicant abducted her and committed rape with her but when she was medically examined then she stated to the doctor that three months earlier also applicant made physical relationship with her, therefore, it appears that at different stages prosecutrix changed her version and, therefore, she is not a reliable person.

¶15

He further submits that applicant is not having any previous criminal history and in the present matter he is in jail since 24.4.2023.

¶16

Per contra, learned A.G.A. for the State opposed the prayer for bail and submits victim is hardly 15 to 16 years old girl and as per the medical report she is pregnant and before the doctor when she was medically examined then she stated that about three months before applicant committed rape with her and, therefore, at this stage it cannot be said that she did not conceive with the applicant. He further submits applicant is also a married man.

¶17

I have heard both the parties and perused the record of the case.

¶18

Considering the fact that applicant is a married man and victim made allegation of rape against him and in her statement under Section 161 Cr. P.C. she stated that she loved the applicant and before doctor she stated that three months before applicant committed rape with the victim, in my view, applicant is not entitled to be released on bail.

¶19

The instant bail application is rejected.

¶20

Order Date :- 4.10.2023 Kumar Manish.

¶21

Digitally signed by :- MANISH TRIPATHI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Bishambhar Nishad v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bishambhar Nishad v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vishal Mishra @ Abhinav Vs State of U.P.

Megu Vs State of U.P.

Sakir Vs State of U.P. and Another

Kuldeep Vs State of U.P.

Sunil Kushwaha Vs State of U.P.

Naresh Vs State of U.P.