Karan v. State of U.P. and 3 Others
Case brief
What is this about?
An FIR was lodged against the applicant for enticement, rape, and offences under POCSO Act against a 15-year-old girl. The applicant argued inconsistent prosecutrix statements and lack of medical evidence for bail. The bench noted prosecutrix was a minor. Bail application was rejected.
What did the court decide?
Application for bail rejected; applicant remains in custody.
What the court decided
A compact analysis
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.
Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:228949
Court No. - 65
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 42725 of 2023
Applicant :- Karan Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Jitendra Kumar Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Babita Upadhyay
Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.
- Heard Mr. Jitendra Kumar Yadav, the learned counsel for applicant, the learned A.G.A. for State and Mrs. Babita Upadhyay, the learned counsel representing opposite party 3 i.e. High Court Legal Services Committee, High Court, Allahabad.
- Perused the record.
- This application for bail has been filed by applicant-Karan, seeking his enlargement on bail in Case Crime No. 209 of 2023, under Sections 363, 376 IPC and Sections 3/4 POCSO Act, Police Station-Nigohi, District-Shahjahanpur during the pendency of trial.
- At the very outset, the learned A.G.A. contends that notice of present application for bail has been served upon first informantopposite party 2 on 02.10.2023. However, in spite of service of notice, no one has put in appearance on behalf of first informantopposite party 2 to oppose this application for bail.
Issues for consideration
3 issues framed by the court
Whether an accused in cases under IPC Sections 363, 376 and POCSO Act Sections 3/4 is entitled to bail despite inconsistent statements by the prosecutrix.
Whether an accused charged with sexual offences against a minor below 16 years of age can be enlarged on bail on the grounds of lack of medical evidence.
Whether any ground exists to enlarge an accused who has been in custody since September 2023 pending the conclusion of the investigation report.
Parties & counsel
- applicant
Karan
- respondent
State Of U.P.
- respondent
Opposite Party 2
- respondent
High Court Legal Services Committee, High Court, Allahabad
Coram
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
- Court
- Allahabad HC
- Decided on
- · December
- Registered
- Case no.
- BAIL/42725/2023
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court