Dismissed

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

Allahabad HC4 Apr 2023BAIL/45630/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal miscellaneous bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C., the Allahabad High Court, single judge, denied bail to an applicant charged with rape of a minor under IPC and POCSO. The court found the victim to be a minor and noted medical evidence corroborating the allegations, rejecting the claim of false implication.

What did the court decide?

Bail application rejected; trial to be concluded expeditiously.

Jeetu 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. - 45630 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Jeetu Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Monika Pal,Brij Raj Singh,Raj Kumar Dubey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Abida Syed,Sharique Ahmed

¶4

Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Singh,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned Additional Government Advocate representing the State, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the first informant/opposite party no.2 and Ms. Abida Syed, learned counsel appearing on behalf of opposite party nos. 3 and 4.

¶6

By means of this application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C., applicant, who is involved in Case Crime No. 115 of 2022, under Section 376 of I.P.C. and Section 3/4 POCSO Act, Police Station- Babupurwa, DistrictKanpur Nagar, seeks enlargement on bail during the pendency of trial.

¶7

As per prosecution case, in brief, informant who is brother of minor victim, lodged F.I.R. on 01.06.2022, at about 11:17 hours, under Section 376 of I.P.C. and Section 3/4 POCSO Act, against the applicant- Jeetu, making allegations inter-alia that he and the applicant both are living along with their families in separate portion of the same house on rent. The applicant enticing his minor sister made physical relation with her and also put vermilion on her forehead whereas applicant is a married person and is also father of two daughters.

¶8

The main substratum of argument of learned counsel for the applicant is that applicant has been falsely implicated in this case because of his dispute with the informant over some money transaction. The applicant who is languishing in jail since 02.06.2022, having no criminal history to his credit is liable to be released on bail.

¶9

Per contra, learned A.G.A. for the State as well as learned counsel appearing on behalf of opposite

¶10

party nos. 2 to 4 opposed the prayer for bail of the applicant by contending that victim is minor child and according to her Educational Certificate, issued by the Head Master, Sri R.K. Primary Vidyalaya, Babupurwa, Kanpur Nagar, her date of birth is 25.01.2008 and on the day of incident, she was aged about 14 years, 4 months and 6 days and there is allegation of rape against the applicant in the F.I.R. as well as in the statements under Section 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. of the victim

¶11

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and examined the matter in its entirety, I find that there is no dispute about the fact that victim is minor child as noted above. On perusal of medical examination report of the victim, I also find that her hymen was ruptured and not present which corroborate the allegation of the prosecution that physical relation was made by the applicant with the victim. At this stage, I do not find any material on record to presume the false implication of the applicant and to disbelieve the statements under Section 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. of the victim.

¶12

In view of the above, 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, severity of punishment and age of the minor victim, I do not find any good ground to release the applicant on bail.

¶13

Accordingly, the bail application is rejected .

¶14

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.

¶15

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.

¶16

Order Date :- 4.4.2023 Kashifa

¶17

Digitally signed by :- KASHIFA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jeetu 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

Brijesh Kumar Vs State of U.P.

Deepak Rathaur Vs State of U.P.

Rohit Sahani Vs State of U.P.

Abhishek Yadav Vs State of U.P.

Phool Singh Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Shilu @ Shailendra Kumar Pathak Vs State of U.P.