Dismissed¶14

Gaffar Ali v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC13 Dec 2023BAIL/51217/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Gaffar Ali bail rejection; CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. 51217 of 2023; High Court of Judicature at Allahabad; Rajeev Misra J; neutral citation 2023:AHC:236331; Case Crime No. 514 of 2023; Sections 376 I.P.C.; Sections 3/4 POCSO Act; P.S. Nichlaul, District Maharajganj; minor prosecutrix aged about 15 years; false promise; statements under Sections 161 and 164 Cr. P. C.; U.S.G. pregnancy; X Minor Vs. State of Jharkhand and another, 2022 Livelaw SC 19; bail application rejected; order date 13.12.2023.

What did the court decide?

Considering the nature and gravity of the offence, the evidence, the complicity of the accused, the accusation made, and the fact that the objections raised by the learned A.G.A. could not be dislodged by the learned counsel for the applicant, the Court found no good or sufficient ground to enlarge the applicant on bail.

Gaffar Ali Vs State of U.P. — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:236331

¶2

Court No. - 65

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 51217 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Gaffar Ali Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Atmaram Nadiwal,Dinesh Kumar Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.

¶6

Heard Mr. Dinesh Kumar Yadav, the learned counsel for applicant and the learned A.G.A. for State.

¶7

Perused the record.

¶8

This bail application has been filed by applicant Gaffar Ali seeking his enlargement on bail in Case Crime No. 514 of 2023, under Sections 376 I.P.C. and Sections 3/4 POCSO Act, P.S. Nichlaul, District Maharajganj, during the pendency of trial.

¶9

At the very outset, the learned A.G.A. submits that the prosecutrix in her statements under Sections 161 and 164 Cr. P. C. has clearly stated that the modesty of the prosecutrix was dislodged by extending false promise. The prosecutrix is a young girl aged about 15 years as per her statement under Section 161 Cr. P. C. As per the medical report i.e. U.S.G. prosecutrix was found to be in family way. Learned A.G.A. has then referred to the judgement of the Supreme Curt in X Minor Vs. State of Jharkhand and another, 2022 Livelaw SC 19

¶10

He, therefore, contends that in view of above, applicant does not deserve to be enlarged on bail.

¶11

When confronted with above, the learned counsel for applicant could not overcome the same. He has, however, tried to justify the prayer for bail with reference to the record.

¶12

Having heard the learned counsel for applicant, the learned A.G.A. for state, upon perusal of material brought on record, nature and gravity of offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, accusation made and coupled with the fact that the objections raised by the learned A.G.A. could not be dislodged by the learned counsel for applicant, therefore, irrespective of the submission urged by the learned counsel for applicant, this Court does not find any good or sufficient ground to enlarge the applicant on bail.

¶13

As a result, the present bail application fails and is liable to be

¶14

rejected. It is, accordingly, rejected. Order Date :- 13.12.2023 HSM

¶15

Digitally signed by :- HARI SHANKER MISHRA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Gaffar Ali v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gaffar Ali v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rambha Pandey Vs State of U.P.

Prince Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Adarsh Pandey Vs State of U.P.

Manappuram Finance Limited through Its Authorized Signatory Mr. Nikhil Chauhan vs State of U.P. and Another

Ankit Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Urmila Devi Vs State of U.P.