Dismissed

Sakir v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC3 Oct 2023BAIL/45743/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court Court rejected bail application of Sakir accused of raping a 14-year-old minor under POCSO and IPC sections. Court directed trial conclusion within eight months due to two-year jail delay, observing applicant failed to substantiate false implication claims.

What did the court decide?

Rejection of bail application. Directing trial court to conclude trial within eight months.

Sakir Vs State of U.P. and Another — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:189443

¶2

Court No. - 70

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 45743 of 2021

¶4

Applicant :- Sakir Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Abhishek Bhushan,Abdul Majeed,Anuj Kumar,Sufia Saba Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Sameer Jain,J.

¶6

Sri Shatruhan Yadav, learned AGA apprised the Court that notice has already been served upon the informant on 20.08.2023. Despite service of notice, none appeared on behalf of the informant.

¶7

Heard Ms. Sufia Saba, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Shatruhan Yadav, learned AGA for the State.

¶8

The instant bail application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 168 of 2021, under Sections 376, 506, 354 IPC and Section 3/4 POCSO Act, Police Station Budhana, District Muzaffarnagar during pendency of the trial.

¶9

FIR of the present case was lodged against applicant and according to the FIR on 15.05.2021 applicant committed rape with the daughter of the informant aged about 14 years.

¶10

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant is innocent and totally on the basis of false allegation of rape due to previous enmity, he has been made accused in the present matter. She further submits that actually applicant and informant both worked at Brick kiln and some dispute with regard to payment arose and only due to this reason, applicant has been made accused in the present matter. She further submits that although incident is said to have taken place on 15.05.2021 but FIR of the present case was lodged on 17.05.2021 i.e. after two days.

¶11

She next submits that although as per allegation, applicant committed rape with the minor daughter of the informant aged about 14 years but during medical examination doctor did not find any injury on her body. She further submits that even from the perusal of the site plan, which has been annexed along with instant

¶12

bail application, it appears that at the time of incident all the nearby shops were open, therefore, it is impossible for the applicant to commit rape with the victim.

¶13

She further submits that applicant is not having any criminal history and in the present matter he is in jail since 18.05.2021 i.e. for more than two years and till date even trial of the case could not be concluded.

¶14

Per contra, learned AGA opposed the prayer for bail and submits that victim is hardly 14 years old girl and she in her both the statements recorded under Sections 161 Cr.P.C. and 164 Cr.P.C. made allegation of rape against the applicant and applicant could not bring any good reason for his false implication, therefore, applicant does not deserve bail.

¶15

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case.

¶16

Although, applicant is in jail since 18.05.2021 i.e. for more than two years but as per allegation he committed rape with the daughter of the informant aged about 14 years and daughter of the informant in her both the statements recorded under Sections 161 Cr.P.C. and 164 Cr.P.C. made allegation of rape against the applicant and I find force in the argument advanced by learned AGA that applicant failed to bring any good reason for his false implication.

¶17

Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case discussed above, in my view, applicant is not entitled to be released on bail.

¶18

Accordingly, the instant bail application is rejected.

¶19

However, considering the fact that applicant is in jail since 18.05.2021 i.e. for more than two years, trial court is directed to conclude the trail of the case within a period of eight months from the date of production of certified copy of this order strictly as per provision of Section 35 of POCSO Act and Section 309 Cr.P.C. on day to-day basis without granting any unnecessary adjournments to either of the parties, if there is no legal impediment.

¶20

It is clarified that the observations made herein are limited to the facts brought in by the parties pertaining to the disposal of bail application and the said observations shall have no bearing on the merits of the case during trial.

¶21

Order Date :- 3.10.2023 AK Pandey

¶22

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

Sakir v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sakir v. State of U.P. and Another

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

Smt Beboo @ Baby Vs State of U.P.

Amit Srivastava Vs State of U.P.

Param Singh Alias Premchand Vs State of U.P.

Vishal Mishra @ Abhinav Vs State of U.P.

Megu Vs State of U.P.

Amit Soni Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others