Rakesh Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Court No. - 74

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 52127 of 2022

Applicant :- Rakesh Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Manoj Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Ajay Bhanot,J.

¶5

Shri Sunil Kumar Srivastava, learned A.G.A. for the State contends that the police authorities in compliance of the directions issued by this Court in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 46998 of 2020 (Junaid Vs State of U.P. and another) reported at 2021 (6) ADJ 511 and with a view to implement the provisions of POCSO Act, 2012 read with POCSO Rules, 2020, have served notices of the bail application upon the the victim as well as the CWC.

¶6

By means of the the bail application the applicant has prayed to be enlarged on bail in Case Crime No. 409 of 2022 at Police StationBhojipura, District- Bareilly, under Sections 452, 354, 506, IPC Section 7/8 POCSO Act. The applicant is in jail since 14.08.2022.

¶7

The bail application of the applicant was rejected by the Special Judge, POCSO Act/Additional Sessions Judge, Bareilly, on 03.11.2022.

¶8

The following arguments made by Shri Manoj Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel on behalf

¶9

of the applicant, which could not be satisfactorily refuted by Shri Sunil Kumar Srivastava, learned AGA from the record, entitle the applicant for grant of bail:

¶10

(1). The age of the victim was also incorrectly entered by her parents in the school register only to give her an advantage in life. The victim in her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. has asserted that she is 17 years of age.

¶11

(2). The victim is in fact a major.

¶12

(3). Medical examination to determine the correct age as per duly established medical protocol was not got done by expert doctors from a reputed institute as the same would falsify the prosecution case.

¶13

(4). The victim in her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. has asserted that the applicant did not behave inappropriately with her nor did he assault her.

¶14

(5). Learned counsel for the applicant contends that the applicant does not have any criminal history apart from the instant case.

¶15

(6). The applicant is not a flight risk. The applicant being a law abiding citizen has always cooperated with the investigation and undertakes to cooperate with the court proceedings. There is no possibility of his

¶16

influencing witnesses, tampering with the evidence or reoffending.

¶17

In the light of the preceding discussion and without making any observations on the merits of the case, the bail application is allowed.

¶18

Let the applicant- Rakesh 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 below. The following conditions be imposed in the interest of justice:-

¶19

(i) The applicant will not tamper with the evidence or influence any witness during the trial.

¶20

(ii) The applicant will appear before the trial court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted.

¶21

Order Date :- 4.1.2023 Pravin

¶22

Digitally signed by :- PRAVIN VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sanjeev Vs State of U.P.

Deepak Alias Manish Vs State of U.P.

Ajay Rawat Vs State of U.P.

Arun Singh Vs State of U.P.

Kallu @ Rashid Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Karan @ Bhola Vs State of U.P.