Allowed

Sovendra Singh v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC17 Feb 2023BAIL/6415/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the bail application of an accused charged with rape and cyber-offences, citing the dispute over the victim's age, allegations of false implication and the existence of a counter FIR as grounds for grant of bail without expressing opinion on merits.

What did the court decide?

Released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties subject to conditions regarding tampering with evidence, cooperation in trial, and no further criminal activity.

Sovendra Singh Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Court No. - 83

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 6415 of 2023

¶3

Applicant :- Sovendra Singh Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Sant Sharan Upadhyay,Sadhna Upadhyaya,Samriddhi Upadhyaya

¶4

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Surendra Kumar Tripathi

¶5

Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.

¶6

List has been revised.

¶7

Heard Mrs. Sadhna Upadhyaya and Ms. Samriddhi Upadhyaya, learned counsels for the applicant as well as Sri Surendra Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel for the informant and Sri Vibhav Anand Singh, learned AGA for the State and perused the material placed on record.

¶8

The instant bail application has been filed u/s 439 of Cr.P.C. on behalf of the applicant with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No. 57 of 2022, under Sections 376, 506 of IPC, Sections 3/4 of POCSO Act and Section 67-B of Information Technology Act, Police Station Mahila Thana, District Agra, during the pendency of trial.

¶9

As per prosecution story, the applicant is stated to have befriended the victim on facebook on 12.05.2022 and it transpired from the status of the applicant that he was a policemen employed in Fire Department. The applicant and the victim are stated to have gone in a hotel on 16.05.2022 whereby the applicant has spiked her drink and thereafter committed rape with her. It is also alleged in the FIR that the applicant had recorded a video of the said act and threatened her that he shall make it viral on social media. It is also alleged in the FIR that the applicant has also committed the same offence with another lady. Later on, the applicant has promised the victim that he shall marry her and both are stated to have entered into corporeal relationship again. The present FIR was lodged by the victim on 21.06.2022.

¶10

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant has

¶11

been falsely implicated in the present case. Initially, the present FIR was lodged u/s 376, 506, 328 IPC and Sections 3/4 of POCSO Act but during investigation, no allegation of Section 328 IPC was found by the Investigating Officer and, as such, the said section was deleted and Section 67-B of Information and Technology Act was added. Learned counsel has further stated that ingredients of Section 376 IPC and Section 67-B of I.T. Act are not fulfilled with respect to the offence alleged against the applicant as the victim is major and no video or photographs are on record. In support of his submission, learned counsel has placed much reliance upon the age certificate of the victim which is annexed as Annexure-3 to the affidavit filed along with bail application whereby the age of the victim was observed as 16 years by the CMO, Agra on 20.07.2019. Learned counsel has further stated that as per the said report, the age of the victim on the date of occurrence comes out more than 19 years. The present FIR is a counterblast to the FIR lodged by the applicant against the informant/victim herein on 21.05.2022 at FIR No.212 of 2022 at Police Station Hariparwat.

¶12

Learned counsel for the applicant has also stated that as per the statement of the victim recorded u/s 164 Cr.P.C., the victim is a consenting party and it can also be derived from the fact that she did not provide her ID at the time of admission in the hotel for the sake of not disclosing her identity. For the sake of brevity, the other details of her statement recorded u/s 164 Cr.P.C. are not being mentioned herein. Learned counsel has further stated that an application was moved by the father of the applicant whereby it transpired that another FIR was lodged by the father of the victim as FIR No.402 of 2019 whereby almost similar allegations have been levelled against six accused persons. Learned counsel has next submitted that the matter is of honey trap and the informant/victim herein and her family members are used to coax various persons into honey trap and extracting money from them. The applicant is languishing in jail since 21.09.2022 having no criminal history to his credit, deserves to be released on bail. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and shall cooperate with the trial.

¶13

Learned counsel has further stated that Section 67-B of I.T. Act does not apply

¶14

to the present case as the victim is major aged about 19 years.

¶15

Learned counsel has vehemently argued the point that the victim herself is professional in depicting indecent videos of herself and posting them on social media account on Instagram by the name of (i) nivisingh156, (ii) sonalikasarmha and (iii) janhvichahhar.

¶16

Learned counsel has stated that the informant is used to changing her address frequently, as is evident from the perusal of case diary, that she had referred to five different addresses at different times, as has been mentioned in paragraph 29 of the affidavit annexed to the bail application.

¶17

Learned counsel has stated that no mark of internal and external injury has been found on the body of the victim. As per the pathologist report, no alive or dead spermatozoa were found. Thus, the prosecution story stands falsified on this count also.

¶18

Per contra, learned counsel for the informant has vehemently opposed the bail prayer of the applicant on the ground that the victim was minor at the time of offence and the age certificate issued by CMO dated 20.07.2019 depicting her age to be 16 years may even be treated as 14 years on lower side in the light of various judgements of Apex Court whereby the age opined by ossification test may vary on either side but he could also not produce any details of another lady mentioned in the FIR.

¶19

Learned AGA has also opposed the bail prayer of the applicant but could not dispute the said fact as narrated by the learned counsel for the applicant regarding the age of the victim as per her school certificate is 15.10.2006 and thus, she was about 16 years of age on the date of incident.

¶20

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties, nature of offence, evidence on record, stage of trial, complicity of accused, severity of punishment, age of the victim, delay of one month in lodging the FIR and also considering the fact that there is another FIR lodged by the applicant one month prior to the present FIR, I find it a fit

¶21

case for releasing the applicant on bail.

¶22

Without expressing any opinion on the merits, the bail application is allowed. Let the applicant Sovendra Singh involved in aforesaid crime be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions that :-

¶23

(i) The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence by intimidating/ pressurizing the witnesses, during the investigation or trial.

¶24

(ii) The applicant shall cooperate in the trial sincerely without seeking any adjournment.

¶25

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

¶26

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.

¶27

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

¶28

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 based on the testimony of the witnesses.

¶29

Order Date :- 17.2.2023 Siddhant

¶30

Digitally signed by :- SIDDHANT SAHU High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Sovendra Singh v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sovendra Singh 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

Vijay Paswan Vs State of U.P.

Annu Widow Vs State of U.P.

Prabal Agnihotri Vs State of U.P.

Udal Bind @ Rudal Bind @ Vikas Bind Vs State of U.P.

Pramod Kumar Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Ramu Sonkar Vs State of U.P.