Allowed

Ramesh @ Haua v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC25 Apr 2023BAIL/7454/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Hon'ble Court allowed the bail application for an accused charged under IPC and POCSO Act. The Court found that the State failed to establish any exceptional circumstances disentitling the applicant for bail, noting the lack of evidence for sexual assault and medical report showing only simple injuries.

What did the court decide?

The applicant to be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties subject to standard conditions including not tampering with evidence and appearing for trial.

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

¶1

Court No. - 88

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 7454 of 2023

¶3

Applicant :- Ramesh @ Haua Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Shrawan Kumar Pandey,Ankit Kumar,Anurag Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Pratibha Vohra

¶4

Hon'ble Vikram D. Chauhan,J.

¶5

Learned A.G.A. submits that instructions have been received and he has no objection in case the bail application is heard on merits.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Ms. Pratibha Vohra, learned counsel for the informant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶7

Counter affidavit filed by learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 is taken on record.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that he does not wish to file the rejoinder affidavit.

¶9

It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that the first information report was lodged on 10.1.2023 with the allegation that the daughter of the informant aged about 14 years went to the agricultural field where the applicant started misbehaving with the daughter of the informant. Thereafter, caught hold her hand and was taking her to the agricultural field. The daughter of the informant some how got escaped and came to home. Thereafter, the applicant along with his family members have beaten the family members of the informant. The injured were examined and as per injury report, the injuries were simple in nature and were caused by hard and blunt object. The only injury received by the victim girl is on the right wrist. There is no other injury of sexual assault on the body of the victim

¶10

Learned counsel for the applicant has drawn attention to the statement of the victim recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. in which it is stated that the applicant was misbehaving with her and he was trying to remove her clothes. He submits that even assuming the statement of the victim under Section 164 Cr.P.C. is correct, no offence under Section 7/8 of POCSO Act is made out.

¶11

The applicant has no criminal history. Applicant is languishing in jail since 17.1.2023 and in case he is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate in the trial.

¶12

Ms. Pratibha Vohra, learned counsel for the informant submits that the applicant has misbehaved the daughter of the informant and has assaulted her as a result of the same, she sustained injuries. However, she does not dispute the fact that as per the injury report the only injury is abrasion on the right wrist of the victim and the injuries are simple in nature.

¶13

Learned A.G.A. for the State opposed the prayer for bail but does not dispute factual matrix of the case. He submits that the victim is minor and as such offence under POCSO Act is made out.

¶14

Learned AGA has not brought any fact or circumstances to indicate criminal history or antecedents of the applicant which would disentitle the applicant for Bail.

¶15

It is to be seen that in the present case although the allegations in the first information report pertains to holding of the hand of the victim by the applicant. However, in her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. the case has been improved of trying to remove the clothes.

¶16

It is also to be seen that there is no evidence of sexual assault and even the medical evidence does not support the allegation of sexual assault as no injury was found on the private part of the victim and the injuries sustained by her are simple in nature.

¶17

It is not the case of the State that the applicant has not cooperated in the investigation or proceedings before the trial court.

¶18

The principle that Bail is a rule and Jail is an exception has been well recognised by Apex Court more specifically on the touch stone of Article 21 of the Constitution. The said principle has been reiterated by the Apex Court in Satyendra Kumar Antil Vs Central Bureau of Investigation and another, 2022 (10) SCC 51 . Learned AGA has not shown any exceptional circumstances which would warrant denial of bail to the Applicant.

¶19

No material, facts or circumstances has been shown by learned AGA that the accused may tamper with the evidence or witnesses or the accused is of such character that his mere presence at large would intimidate the witnesses or that accused will use his liberty to subvert justice or tamper with the evidence.

¶20

It is settled principle of law that the object of bail is to secure the attendance of the accused at the trial. No material particulars or circumstances suggestive of the applicant fleeing from justice or thwarting the course of justice or creating other troubles in the shape of repeating offences or intimidating witnesses and the like have been shown by learned AGA for the State.

¶21

Learned AGA for the State has not shown any material or circumstances that the accused/applicant is not entitled to bail in larger interests of the public or State.

¶22

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, nature of offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, submissions of learned counsel for the parties and 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.

¶23

Let the applicant Ramesh @ Haua involved in Case Crime No.0012 of 2023, under Sections 354, 323, 506 I.P.C. and 7/8 of Protecton of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, Police Station Dhanari, District Sambhal be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to the following conditions:-

¶24

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

¶25

The applicant will not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witness.

¶26

The applicant will appear before the trial court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted and/or the applicant shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required.

¶27

The applicant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which he is accused, or suspected, of the commission of which he is suspected.

¶28

5 . 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.

¶29

The applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court.

¶30

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

¶31

Order Date :- 25.4.2023 Bhaskar

¶32

Digitally signed by :- BHASKAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Ramesh @ Haua v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramesh @ Haua 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

Dr. Rakesh Varma Vs State of U.P. and Another

Smt Baby Savita Vs State of U.P.and Another

Minhaz @ Chota Vs State of U.P.

Rajiv Kumar Tiwari Vs State of U.P. and Another

Dilshad Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Seemant Dwivedi Vs State of U.P.