High Court Аллаhabad allowed bail in a POCSO case where the court found an 18-day delay in FIR lodging, ambiguous age evidence (19 vs 17), and no tampering indicators, granting bail on a personal bond and two sureties.
Released on personal bond and two sureties subject to conditions of attending court and not interfering with evidence.
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.
Court No. - 75
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 48494 of 2022
Applicant :- Puttan Lal Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Nand Kishor Mishra,Shilpa Ahuja Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Bal Mukund Singh,Beena Mishra
Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Singh,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned Additional Government Advocate representing the State, Mr. Bal Mukund Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the first informant and Ms. Beena Mishra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of opposite party nos. 3 and 4.
The instant bail application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. has been filed on behalf of the applicant with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No. 224 of 2021, under Sections 363, 366, 376, 323, 506, 427 of I.P.C. and Section 5/6 Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, Police Station-Kalyanpur, District-Fatehpur, during the pendency of trial.
As per the prosecution case in brief, the informant who is father of the victim lodged F.I.R. on 03.12.2021 at 12:13 hours for the alleged offence under Sections 363, 366 of I.P.C. against the applicant with the allegations inter alia that on 15.11.2021, his daughter was enticed away by the applicant.
It is argued by learned counsel for the applicant that F.I.R. has been lodged after delay of eighteen days. As per ossification test report of the victim, her radiological age is about 19 years, as such she was major and consenting party with the applicant. Referring the statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. of the victim it is argued that victim was in the company of the applicant since last three months and she was also doing labour work there on her own volition, therefore, the applicant who is languishing in jail since 18.03.2022 having no criminal history to his credit is entitled to be released on bail.
On the other hand, learned A.G.A. for the State,
learned counsel for the informant and learned counsel for opposite party nos. 3 and 4 opposed the prayer for bail of the applicant by contending that as per educational certificate of the victim, her age is about 17 years and she, in her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C., has made allegation of her sexual harassment against the applicant.
Having heard learned counsel for the parties and examined the matter in its entirety, I find that the F.I.R. has been lodged after delay of eighteen days and as per ossification test report of the victim, her radiological age is about 19 years. Thought the victim has made allegation of her sexual harassment against the applicant but there is no dispute that she was in the association of the applicant since last three months in district Banda and Delhi and during this period, she was not confined by the applicant, therefore, she had an ample opportunity to raise alarm or to make complaint or to return to her home, but she did not do so, which prima facie indicates that victim was voluntarily living with the applicant. In the medical examination report of the victim, her hymen was found old torn and healed and no injury has been found on her body.
In view of the above, considering the facts and circumstances of the case as well as keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused and submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that the applicant has made out a fit case for bail. Hence, the bail application is hereby allowed .
Let the applicant- Puttan Lal (Rajmistri) , be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions which are being imposed in the interest of justice:-
(i) That the applicant shall cooperate in the expeditious disposal of the trial and shall regularly attend the court unless inevitable.
(ii) That the applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police ofÏcer or tamper with the evidence.
(iii) That after his release, the applicant shall not involve in any criminal activity.
(iv) The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be verified by court concerned before the release of the applicant on bail.
In case of breach of any of the conditions mentioned above, court concerned will be at liberty to cancel the bail of the applicant.
Order Date :- 19.4.2023 Kashifa
Digitally signed by :- KASHIFA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the applicant is entitled to bail in a POCSO case considering the delay in FIR and medical evidence?
Whether the victim's age and medical condition indicate consent or enticement?
Whether the circumstances of the case make the applicant fit for bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C.?
3 provisions across 2 enactments
Puttan Lal
State Of U.P.
Sanjay Kumar Singh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
