Allowed

Pawan Chauhan @ Muneeb v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC6 Apr 2023BAIL/60066/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court allowed the bail application of the applicant facing trial for abduction, luring of minor, and POCSO/rape charges. Relying on victim's confession indicating consent, the Court held the applicant made out a case for bail, subject to sureties and standard conditions.

What did the court decide?

Released on bail by furnishing a personal bond and two heavy sureties each in the like amount.

Pawan Chauhan @ Muneeb Vs State of U.P. and… — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Court No. - 79

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 60066 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Pawan Chauhan @ Muneeb Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Mahender Pal Singh Yadav,Amaresh Yadava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Saumya Srivastava

¶4

Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.

¶5

List has been revised. Supplementary affidavit filed by learned counsel for the applicant is taken on record.

¶6

Heard Sri Jai Prakash Yadav, learned Advocate holding brief for Sri Amaresh Yadava, learned counsel for the applicant as well as Sri Vibhav Anand Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. Learned counsel for the informant is not present.

¶7

Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 0186 of 2022, under Sections 363, 366, 376 I.P.C. and 3/4 POCSO Act, Police Station Gambhirpur, District Azamgarh, during the pendency of trial.

¶8

As per prosecution story, the applicant is stated to have enticed away the minor daughter of the informant aged about 16 years on 31.5.2022 at about 2.30 am. It was also mentioned that there were Rs. 40 thousand in the account of the daughter of the informant.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that the applicant is absolutely innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case with a view to cause unnecessary harassment and to victimize him. Learned counsel has further stated that the applicant has nothing to do with the said offence. The FIR itself indicates about the consent of the victim. Learned counsel has next stated that the statement of the victim recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. also indicates that she had succumbed to the luring of the applicant, as he has threatened her that he shall commit suicide, unless she should come alongwith him. Learned counsel has also stated that the allegations of rape against the applicant have been foisted later on after legal

¶10

consultation. Learned counsel has also stated that as per the ossification test report, the age of the victim was found to be 18 years. The applicant is also a young chap of 21 years. Learned counsel has next stated that the applicant has been nominated on account of his refusal to marry the daughter of the informant as is mentioned in her statement.

¶11

Several other submissions have been made on behalf of the applicant to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against him. The circumstances which, as per counsel, led to the false implication of the applicant have also been touched upon at length. There is no criminal history of the applicant. The criminal history referred by learned A.G.A. has been explained vide supplementary affidavit filed in Court today. The applicant is languishing in jail since 4.10.2022. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶12

Per contra, learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the bail application but unable to dispute the said averments as referred with respect to the statements of the victim recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. submissions raised by the learned counsel for the applicant.

¶13

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, the evidence on record, pending trial and considering the complicity of accused, severity of punishment, and taking into consideration the statement of the victim recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., at this stage, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed .

¶14

Let the applicant- Pawan Chauhan @ Muneeb involved in aforementioned case crime number be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two heavy sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions.

¶15

i. The applicant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.

¶16

ii. The applicant will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness.

¶17

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

¶18

iv. The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal activity or commission of any crime after being released on bail.

¶19

v. 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.

¶20

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the prosecution shall be at liberty to move bail cancellation application before this Court.

¶21

Identity, status and residence proof of the applicant and sureties be verified by the court concerned before the bonds are accepted.

¶22

It is made clear that observations made in granting bail to the applicant shall not in any way affect the learned trial Judge in forming his independent opinion on the testimony of the witnesses.

¶23

Order Date :- 6.4.2023 Shalini

¶24

Digitally signed by :- SHALINI JAISWAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Pawan Chauhan @ Muneeb v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pawan Chauhan @ Muneeb 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rahul Vs State of U.P.

Sunil Alias Sheriya Vs State of U.P. and Another

Pratap Singh Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Sandeep @ Toote Vs State of U.P.

Harendra Kumar Vs State of U.P.

Sunil Vs State of U.P.