Allowed

Makkhanlal Jaiswal v. State of U.P. Thru. Its Secy. Deptt. of Home, Lko. and Others

Allahabad HC17 Jan 2024/11838/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this bail application concerning rape and POCSO charges, the court granted bail to the applicant. The order was based on the lack of corroborative evidence beyond the victim's statements, the applicant's clean criminal record, and the fact that only one of seven prosecution witnesses had been examined.

What did the court decide?

Released on bail with personal bonds and two reliable sureties of Rs. 25,000/- each.

Makkhanlal Jaiswal Vs State of U.P. Thru… — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Court No. - 12

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 11838 of 2023

¶3

Applicant :- Makkhanlal Jaiswal Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Its Secy. Deptt. Of Home, Lko. And Others Counsel for Applicant :- Ravindra Shukla Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Ramakar Shukla

¶4

Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Abhinav Singh, Advocate holding brief of Sri Ramakar Shukla, learned counsel for the informant as well as learned A.G.A. and perused the record.

¶6

2 . In terms of the FIR, it was alleged that on 12.03.2023 at about 5 PM the applicant was called the daughter of the informant on the pretext of giving mobile phone and thereafter committed rape on her. This fact was informed to the informant on 19.03.2023. In the statement under Section 161 & 164 Cr.P.C., the prosecution story was reiterated. The F.I.R. was lodged on 20.03.2023 mainly on the ground that the information was given by the victim after one week. Medical on record naturally does not support any allegation as leveled in the FIR.

¶7

3 . The counsel for the applicant argues that in the statement of the victim recorded during trial and filed along with the supplementary afÏdavit, she admitted that she had disclosed the fact after one week to her mother. She also admitted in the cross examination that she used to talk to the applicant on telephone. In the light of the said, it is argued that even as per the statement, she used to talk with the applicant. It it thus argued apart from the statement under Sections 161 & 164 Cr.P.C., there is no corroborative evidence. The age of the victim is approximately 15 years as per X-Ray report and

¶8

14 years as per the Class VIIIth Certificate, which according to the applicant is not a document prescribed under the Rules framed under the Juvenile Justice Act. Although, the statement under Section 161 & 164 Cr.Pf.C., prima facie corroborate the version of the FIR, however, apart from the said, there is no corroborative evidence, the delay in lodging the FIR is also considered at the time of trial. He further argues that out of the seven witnesses only one witness has been examined so far. The applicant has no criminal history and is in custody since 21.03.2023.

¶9

4. Learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for the informant opposed the bail prayer by arguing that the age of the victim is less than 18 years.

¶10

5. Considering the fact that out of the seven witnesses only one witness has been examined so far, coupled with the fact the applicant has no criminal history and is in custody since 21.03.2023. and there is nothing on record to demonstrate that the applicant if enlarged on bail, would in any way adversely affect the trial and without expressing any opinion on merit, I am of the view that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed .

¶11

6. Let the applicant Makkhanlal Jaiswal be released on bail in FIR/ Case Crime No. 0012 of 2023, under Sections 376, 506 IPC and Section 3/4 POCSO Act, Police Station Shivgarh, District Sultanpur, on his furnishing personal bonds and two reliable sureties of Rs.25,000/- each to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:

¶12

(a) The applicant shall execute a bond to undertake to attend the hearings;

¶13

(b) The applicant shall not commit any offence similar to the offence of which he is accused or

¶14

suspected of the commission; and

¶15

(c) 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 ofÏcer or tamper with the evidence.

¶16

Order Date :- 17.1.2024 Arun

¶17

Digitally signed by :- ARUN KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Makkhanlal Jaiswal v. State of U.P. Thru. Its Secy. Deptt. of Home, Lko. and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Makkhanlal Jaiswal v. State of U.P. Thru. Its Secy. Deptt. of Home, Lko. and 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

Arjun Vs State of U.P. Thru. the Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home, Lko. and Others

Mohammad Imran Vs Narcotics Control Bureau Lucknow

Shiva @ Shivam Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko. and Others

Dharmendra @ Sonu Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Pinki Verma Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Lko.

Chhotu Khan Vs the State of U.P. Thru. the Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home, Lko. and Others