Dismissed

Km. Anam v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC9 May 2023BAIL/57046/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge rejected bail for an applicant charged with POCSO, IT Act, and IPC offences alleging she recorded a video of an incident. Bench directed trial court to conclude proceedings per Alakh Alok Srivastava guidelines.

What did the court decide?

Bail application rejected; trial court directed to conclude trial expeditiously under Alakh Alok Srivastava guidelines to reduce detention period.

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

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:98944

¶2

Court No. - 75

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 57046 of 2022 Applicant :- Km. Anam Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Veerendra Singh,Saksham Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Singh,J.

¶5

Despite service of notice upon the informant/ opposite party no. 2, no one has put in appearance on her behalf.

¶6

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

¶7

By means of this application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C., applicant Km. Anam, who is involved in Case Crime No. 139 of 2022, under Sections 376, 506 IPC, Section 3/4/17 POCSO Act and Section 67 Information Technology Act, police station Bachhraun, district Amroha, seeks enlargement on bail during the pendency of trial.

¶8

As per prosecution case, in brief, informant, who is mother of the victim, lodged a first information report on 05.06.2022 against four accused persons, namely, Shahil, present applicant Km. Anam, Nishan and Sarfaraj for the alleged offence under Sections 376, 120B, 506 IPC, Section 3/4 POCSO Act and Section 67 Information Technology Act.

¶9

Main substratum of argument of learned counsel for the applicant is that as per the prosecution case, allegation of committing rape has been assigned to co-accused Shahil and so far as present applicant Km. Anam is concerned, it is the case of the prosecution that she has made video of the incident. It is next submitted that before the trial Court, the victim has been examined as PW-3 on 02.11.2022 but she has been declared hostile, therefore, the applicant, who has been languishing in jail since 01.12.2022, may be enlarged on bail.

¶10

Per contra, learned A.G.A. for the State opposed the prayer for bail of the applicant by contending

¶11

that the victim in her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. as well as in her examination-in-chief recorded before the trial Court has supported the prosecution case but later on, when she was crossexamined, then she gave contradictory reply.

¶12

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and examined the matter in its entirety, I find that there is no dispute that the victim in her examination-in-chief has made allegation against co-accused Shahil and present applicant Km. Anam as per the prosecution case but in crossexamination, she has denied the role of the applicant. It is well settled that conclusion from the statement of a witness shall be drawn considering his/her statement as a whole and not in isolation or picking some words from here and some from there. However, this Court in exercise of powers under Section 439 Cr.P.C. does not deem it appropriate to discuss the evidence of the prosecution witness in detail as allegation and defence of the parties concerned are still open to be urged before the trial Court. It is also well settled that hostility of a witness is no ground for bail.

¶13

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.

¶14

Accordingly, the bail application is rejected .

¶15

It is made clear that the observation contained in the instant order is confined to the issue of bail and shall not affect the merit of the trial.

¶16

However, considering the detention period of the applicant as noted above, trial Court is directed to make an endeavour to conclude the trial in accordance with the directions of the Apex Court in the case of Alakh Alok Srivastava Vs. Union of India and others, (2018) 17 SCC 291.

¶17

Order Date :- 9.5.2023 Shubham

¶18

Digitally signed by :- SHUBHAM KUMAR AGRAHARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Km. Anam v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Km. Anam 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

Annu Singh @ Pahalwan Vs State of U.P.

Ibrahim Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Smt. Nirmala Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Khushi Mohammad @ Manu Saifi Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Vijay Kumar Vs State of U.P.

Ranjeet Vs State of U.P.