Dismissed

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

Allahabad HC25 May 2023BAIL/52379/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Allahabad High Court in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 52379 of 2022 rejected an application for bail instituted by Sohit, accused of rape attempt, POCSO offences under Sections 376, 354-A, 504, 506 IPC, and cybercrimes. The court dismissed grounds regarding contradiction in statements and denied bail due to the heinous nature of the offence and severe punishment attached.

What did the court decide?

Application for bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. is rejected at this stage.

Sohit Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:117185

¶2

Court No. - 75

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 52379 of 2022

¶4

Applicant :- Sohit Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Ratnesh Kumar Shukla,Shikhar Tandon Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Singh,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned Additional Government Advocate representing the State.

¶7

By means of this application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C., applicant Sohit, who is involved in Case Crime No. 515 of 2022, under Sections 376 read with Section 511, 354-A, 504, 506 IPC and 9G/10 of POCSO Act and Section 67-B of the Information and Technology Act, police station Pilakhua, district Hapur, seeks enlargement on bail during the pendency of trial.

¶8

The main substratum of argument of learned counsel for the applicant is that initially FIR was lodged under Sections 376-D, 354-A, 504, 506 IPC, 3/4 of POCSO Act and 67-B of IT Act, but after culmination of investigation charge sheet has been submitted under Sections 376 read with Section 511, 354-A, 504, 506 IPC and 9G/10 of POCSO Act and Section 67-B of the Information and Technology Act. It is next submitted that it is not a case of rape, but it is a case of attempt to commit rape. It is next submitted that no such photograph has been made viral from the mobile of the applicant and that there are contradictions in the statements of the victim under Section 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. and, therefore, the applicant, who is languishing in jail since 07.9.2022 is entitled to be released on bail.

¶9

Per contra, learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail of the applicant by contending that there is specific allegation of rape against the applicant in the FIR as well as in the statement under Section 161

¶10

Cr.P.C. to the effect that while the applicant was molesting her, co-accused Kalua clicked her obscene photographs and made them viral from Mobile No. 9557056201, which belongs to the applicant. The investigating ofÏcer has recovered the said photograph and made the same as part of case diary. It is also argued that as per School Leaving Certificate of Class-8 issued by the Poorva Madhyamik Vidhyalay, Puda Husainpur, district Hapur, the date of birth of the victim was 28.10.2005 as such on the date of incident, the victim was minor as per Section 2(1)(d) of the POCSO Act.

¶11

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and examined the matter in its entirety, I find that victim is minor girl. Apart from Section 376 IPC, charge sheet has also been submitted for the offence under Section 67-B of the IT Act. During investigation, it was found that photographs in question was made viral from the phone of the applicant. The offence is heinous in nature.

¶12

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 and severity of punishment, I do not find any good ground to release the applicant on bail.

¶13

Accordingly, the bail application is rejected at this stage.

¶14

However the trial court is directed to make an endeavour to conclude the trial, expeditiously in accordance with the directions of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Alakh Alok Srivastava Vs. Union of India and others, (2018)17 SCC 291.

¶15

Order Date :- 25.5.2023 Ishrat

¶16

Digitally signed by :- MOHAMMAD ISHRAT High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sohit 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ramjanam @ Majhi Vs State of U.P. and Another

Kuldeep Vs State of U.P.

Arvind Malik Vs State of U.P. through Secretary Home at Lucknow

Shaukeen Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Salman @ Baqar @ Chhote Vs State of U.P.

Ranjeet Vs State of U.P.