Dismissed

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

Allahabad HC25 Apr 2023BAIL/43428/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This High Court rejected a bail application filed by an accused involved in POCSCO and IPC offences regarding rape and abduction. The court denied bail citing the serious nature of the allegations and the applicant's prior failure to appear after earlier bail. The High Court also directed the trial court to expeditiously conclude the trial without adjournments.

What did the court decide?

Bail application rejected; trial court directed to conclude trial expeditiously without adjournments.

Neeraj 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. - 43428 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Neeraj Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Jasvant Singh,Sheikh Moazzam Inam 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 application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C., applicant-Neeraj who is involved in Case Crime No. 0154 of 2018, under Sections 363, 366 I.P.C. and Section 4 of POCSO Act, Police Station Mirhachi, District Etah, seeks enlargement on bail during the pendency of trial.

¶7

In this case, first information report was lodged on 09.05.2018 for the offence under Section 363, 366 I.P.C. and Section 7/8 of POCSO Act against Neeraj (present applicant) and co-accused Pradeep Kumar and Rajesh. After culmination of investigation, charge-sheet has been submitted against the applicant under Section 363, 366, 376-D I.P.C. and Section 4 of POCSO Act. Thereafter, applicant was granted bail vide order dated 21.02.2019 in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 1186 of 2019 but he violated the terms and condition of the bail order and did not appear before the trial court, therefore, on 22.03.2021, his bail was cancelled by the trial court. After issuance of process under Section 82 Cr.P.C., applicant surrendered on 20.05.2022.

¶8

The main substratum of argument of learned counsel for the applicant is that due to want of knowledge, applicant did not appear before the trial court who is presently languishing in jail since 20.05.2022. He further submits that the applicant undertakes that now he will not misuse the liberty of bail, therefore, he may be enlarged on bail.

¶9

On the other hand, learned A.G.A. opposed the

¶10

prayer for bail of the applicant and submits that after recording the examination-in-chief of the victim on 19.06.2019 when her cross-examination started on 04.03.2021, applicant absconded and did not appear before the trial court for about 1 year and 2 months, therefore, further cross-examination of the victim was held up. Lastly it is submitted that in case applicant is released on bail, there is every possibility that he will again abscond.

¶11

Having heard learned counsel for the parties, perusing the record particularly the examination-inchief of the victim, I find that she, in her statement, has made specific allegation of rape against the present applicant and co-accused Rajesh and she has also proved her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. In the light of the statement of the victim as noted above, I do not find any good ground to enlarge the applicant on bail.

¶12

Accordingly, the bail application is rejected .

¶13

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.

¶14

However considering the detention period of the applicant, trial court is directed to make an endeavour to conclude the trial, expeditiously, without granting any adjournment to either of the parties.

¶15

Copy of this order be sent to the concerned trial court to ensure the compliance of this order.

¶16

Order Date :- 25.4.2023 Saurabh

¶17

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

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Neeraj 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

Baliyan Singh @ Nepal Singh Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Rinku Badhana Vs State of U.P.

Sanjay Nishad Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Ankur Vs State of U.P.

Abhishek Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Kalindi Devi Vs State of U.P.