Allowed

Shani Gautam v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC21 Apr 2023BAIL/55383/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for offences under Section 376 IPC and POCSO, the court allowed bail. Relying on the ossification test report indicating the victim was 18 at the time of the incident and her Section 164 statement denying allegations, the court found the applicant made out a fit case for bail.

What did the court decide?

Released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each, subject to conditions regarding cooperation, non-interference, and no criminal activity.

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

¶1

Court No. - 75

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 55383 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Shani Gautam Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Ved Prakash Pandey,Ashish Kumar Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Singh,J.

¶5

As per the office report dated 06-01-2023 notice has been served upon the informant/opposite party no.4, but no one has put in appearance on his behalf.

¶6

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

¶7

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. 0029 of 2022 under Sections 363, 376 I.P.C., and Section 5/6 of POCSO Act, Police Station- Sujanganj DistrictJaunpur, during the pendency of trial.

¶8

As per the prosecution case, informant who is the father of the victim lodged an F.I.R. on 26-02-2022 against unknown persons stating inter-alia that his daughter aged about 16 years had left her house on 18-02-2022, but she did not return back.

¶9

It is argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that as per ossification test report of the victim, she is aged about 18 years, therefore, she was not minor on the day of incident. Victim in her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. did not make allegation of rape against the applicant and she has clearly stated that she was not enticed away by anyone but she herself left her house. Much emphasis has been given by contending that there is no material on record to constitute the offence punishable under Section 376 IPC against the applicant but the Investigating Officer without conducting fair investigation illegally added Section 376 IPC, while submitting a charge-sheet against the applicant. Lastly it is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that there is no chance of the applicant of fleeing away from the judicial process or tampering with the prosecution evidence. The applicant is languishing in jail since 02-11-2022 and in case he is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate in the early disposal of the case.

¶10

Per contra, learned A.G.A. for the State opposed the prayer for bail of the applicant but could not dispute the above factual aspect of the matter as argued on behalf of the applicant.

¶11

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and examined the matter in its entirety, I find that the radiological age of the victim is about 18 years and she has not supported the prosecution case in her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C..

¶12

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.

¶13

Let the applicant Shani Gautam , 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:-

¶14

(i) That the applicant shall cooperate in the expeditious disposal of the trial and shall regularly attend the court unless inevitable.

¶15

(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 officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶16

(iii) That after his release, the applicant shall not involve in any criminal activity.

¶17

(iv) The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be verified by court concerned before the release of the applicant on bail.

¶18

In case of breach of any of the conditions mentioned above, court concerned will be at liberty to cancel the bail of the applicant.

¶19

Order Date :- 21.4.2023 pks

¶20

Digitally signed by :- PANKAJ KUMAR SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Shani Gautam v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shani Gautam 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shyam Lal Gond Vs State of U.P.

Anuj Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Bablu Sahu Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Komil Das Vs State of U.P.

Mujiburahman Vs State of U.P.

Hakim Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others