Allowed

Sewak Ram v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy., Home Deptt., Lucknow and Others

Allahabad HC5 Feb 2024/1290/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a bail application filed by a 16-year-old accused, the court noted conflicting statements regarding rape allegations and the refusal of a medical examination. Finding no material to support Section 376 IPC charges at that stage, the court granted bail.

What did the court decide?

Released on bail in personal bond with two sureties of Rs.20,000/- each.

Sewak Ram Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin… — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:10319

¶2

Court No. - 12

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 1290 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Sewak Ram Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy., Home Deptt., Lucknow And Others Counsel for Applicant :- Dinesh Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J.

¶6

1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA and perused the record. No one has appeared for respondent no.2 despite notice.

¶7

2. The applicant seeks enlargement on bail in FIR No.0431 of 2023, under Section 452, 504, 506, 376, 323 IPC & Section 3/4 of POCSO Act, P.S. Ramkot, District Sitapur.

¶8

3. In terms of the FIR, on 11.05.2022 at about 10 am, when the sister of the informant was alone, the applicant came to the home and started misbehaving with her. When the victim raised hue and cry, other people reached there upon which the applicant started hurling abuses on them left the home. In the statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C., it was stated by the victim that on 11.05.2023, the applicant came and with and illintention caught hold of her and when she started shouting, her sister-in-law came and the applicant ran away. In the statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C., however, it was stated that on the said date, wrong in the form of physical contact was also done by the applicant. The medical on record, indicates that the victim has refused to undergo medical examination as is clear from Annexure - 5.

¶9

4. Learned AGA has opposed the bail application.

¶10

5. Considering the fact that in the FIR, in the statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C., there was no allegation of rape coupled with the fact that although in the statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C., allegations of rape were made, however, the medical was refused, thus, apart from the statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C., there is no material to try the applicant under Section 376 IPC.

¶11

6. As such, considering the age of the applicant being 16 years and 10 months as per the educational certificate coupled with the fact that primarily the allegation under Section 376 IPC is not made out at this stage, the applicant who has no criminal

¶12

history and is in custody since 20.11.2023, is entitled to be enlarged on bail. In view thereof, the application is allowed.

¶13

7. Let the applicant Sewak Ram be released on bail in aforesaid FIR number on his furnishing a personal bond with two sureties of Rs.20,000/- each to the satisfaction of court concerned with the following conditions:

¶14

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

¶15

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

¶16

(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 officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶17

Order Date :- 5.2.2024 nishant

¶18

Digitally signed by :- NISHANT MOHAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Sewak Ram v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy., Home Deptt., Lucknow and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sewak Ram v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy., Home Deptt., Lucknow 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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Baba @ Jagmohan Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Civil Secrett. Lko. and Others

Suraj Pratap Rai Alias Suraj Vs State of U.P. Thru. the Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Civil Sectt. Lko.

Guddu @ Suresh Kumar Sharma Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home, Lko. and Others

Jabir Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Bramha Vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Civil Sectt. Lko.

Sarthak Singh Vs State of U.P., Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko.