Dismissed¶15

Shiv Pujan v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC18 Jul 2024/1534/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Anticipatory bail dismissed under Section 438 Cr.P.C.; Case Crime No. 0436 of 2024; Sections 363, 376 IPC; Sections 3/4 POCSO Act; P.S. Khairighat, District Bahraich; victim's statements under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C.; delay of eight days in FIR; alleged counterblast to 2021 FIR by applicant's father; gravity of offence; no medical corroboration plea; High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench; Karunesh Singh Pawar, J.; order dated 18.7.2024.

What did the court decide?

On due consideration of the submissions advanced, the F.I.R., the statement of the victim under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. and the gravity of the offence, the Court was not inclined to entertain the anticipatory bail application, which was accordingly dismissed. ¶14

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

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:48592

¶2

Court No. - 14

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 1534 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Shiv Pujan Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Ajey Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Faizal Hashmi

¶5

Hon'ble Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.

¶6

Vakalatnama filed by Shri Faizal Hashmi, Advocate on behalf of opposite party no.2 is taken on record.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for respondent State.

¶8

The present application has been filed by the applicant seeking anticipatory bail in Case Crime No.0436 of 2024, under Section 363, 376 Indian Penal Code and Section 3/4 POCSO Act, Police Station Khairighat, District Bahraich.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated. The victim has made contradictory statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and Section 164 Cr.P.C. The medical of the victim does not corroborate the prosecution case and F.I.R. has been lodged after delay of eight days.

¶10

It is lastly submitted that the F.I.R. is counterblast to the earlier FIR lodged by the father of the applicant in which the complainant has been made accused.

¶11

Per contra, learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for the complainant have opposed the bail prayer. It has been submitted by them that it is not a case of counterblast. Earlier F.I.R. was lodged by the father of the applicant in the year 2021 without naming the complainant, therefore, it cannot be said that there was any rivalry between the applicant and the complaint at that time. It is also submitted that there is

¶12

a clear allegation made by the victim in her statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and 164 Cr.P.C. against the applicant and that is why the investigating officer during the course of investigation has added Section 376 I.P.C. The offence is grievous. It is not a case of false implication. The complicity of the applicant is prima facie evident. No case for anticipatory bail is made out.

¶13

Perused the record.

¶14

On due consideration to the submission advanced, perusal of the F.I.R, the statement of the victim under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and Section 164 Cr.P.C. and also considering the gravity of the offence, I am not inclined to entertain the anticipatory bail application.

¶15

The anticipatory bail application is accordingly dismissed .

¶16

Order Date :- 18.7.2024

¶17

Madhu

¶18

Digitally signed by :- MADHU KUMARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Shiv Pujan v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shiv Pujan v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Harendra Kumar Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Secondary Education Lko. and 5 Others

Triloki Yadav vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. U.P. Lko. and 3 Others

Vishram Sagar vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 3 Others

Sandeep Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. Home Secy. Lko. U.P.

Rahul Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Ankit Rawat Vs State of U.P. Thru Prin. Secy. Home Lko.