Allowed

Sachendra Srivastava @ Pusu v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Lko. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC29 May 2024/1/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed anticipatory bail to the applicant accused of offences under IPC and POCSO, noting prima facie absence of offense ingredients and serious infirmities in the victim's age determination process based on voter records. It directed the police to investigate the origin of the victim's name in the voter list.

What did the court decide?

Bail granted on personal bond with two sureties of Rs.30,000/- each upon furnishing conditions of appearing in court, not committing similar offences, and not tampering with evidence.

Sachendra Srivastava @ Pusu Vs State of U.P… — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:40907

¶2

Court No. - 12

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 1 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Sachendra Srivastava @ Pusu Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Lko. And 3 Others

¶5

Counsel for Applicant :- Gyanendra Pathak Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶6

Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶8

In terms of the time granted, counter afÏdavit has been filed by learned A.G.A.

¶9

From perusal of the record, it transpires that an F.I.R. came to be lodged being Case Crime No.0355 of 2022 dated 17.11.2022 wherein it was alleged that the daughter of the informant aged about 16 years was working in a landmark showroom and on 16.11.2022 at about 9.30 p.m. at night when she was coming back from the duty, the applicant caught hold of her hand and asked her to come for a time of 20 minutes and offered to pay her amount. Subsequently, he ran away after hurling her the abuses.

¶10

Learned counsel for the applicant argued that the said F.I.R. was wholly a false case inasmuch as similar allegations were also levelled against one Azeem Qureshi and thereafter after taking some amount from the said person, she entered into a compromise and this was similar attempt against the applicant. He further argued that in terms of statements under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C., the same cannot constitute an offence under Section 7/8 of the POCSO Act. He further to attract the mandate of Section 7 of the POCSO Act, it is essential that there should be a touch with a

¶11

sexual intent, which is absent even in terms of the said statement. As regards the age, learned counsel for the applicant has placed on record the voter role of the Nagarpalika Parishad where the victim was shown to be a voter aged about 18 years in the voter list issued in the year 2022. He thus, argued that the applicant has been falsely implicated as such he may be granted anticipatory bail.

¶12

None appears on behalf of respondent no.2 despite service of notice.

¶13

Learned A.G.A. has filed a counter afÏdavit bringing on record the chargesheet. Learned A.G.A. argued that based upon the investigation and the birth certificate as produced, the tentative age of the victim was 16 years, six months and 18 days and the chargesheet has been filed against the applicant under Sections 354, 504, 506 I.P.C. and Section 7/8 of the POCSO Act.

¶14

What transpires from the record is that prima facie the ingredients to attract the offence under Section 7/8 of the POCSO Act are not found. The specific allegation of the victim and taking the similar action against against one other person has not been rebutted in the counter afÏdavi. There is a serious infirmity in the age determination process.

¶15

Considering all these facts, a case for anticipatory bail is made out.

¶16

The anticipatory bail application filed by the applicant is allowed.

¶17

In the event of arrest of the applicant- Sachendra Srivastava @ Pusu involved in F.I.R./Case Crime No.0355 of 2022, under Sections 354, 504, 506 I.P.C. and Section 7/8 of the POCSO Act, Police Station Kotwali Nagar, District Bahraich, shall be released on anticipatory bail till conclusion of trial on his furnishing a personal bond with two

¶18

reliable sureties of Rs.30,000/- each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Court Concerned, with the conditions:-

¶19

(a) The applicant shall execute a bond to undertake to attend the hearings and shall cooperate with the trial ;

¶20

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

¶21

(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 her from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police ofÏcer or tamper with the evidence.

¶22

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the court concerned shall have the liberty to cancel the bail granted to the applicant.

¶23

It is made clear that observations made in granting anticipatory 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.

¶24

In view of the fact that apparently from the voter list, the name of the victim appears which cannot happen without there being any application by the informant or on her behalf.

¶25

The investigating ofÏcer is directed to investigate as to how the name of the informant has been found place in the voter list and if it be, take appropriate action for inclusion of her name in the voter list.

¶26

Learned A.G.A. shall send a copy of this order to the concerned investigating ofÏcer for compliance of this order.

¶27

Order Date :- 29.5.2024/Shukla

¶28

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

Sachendra Srivastava @ Pusu v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Lko. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sachendra Srivastava @ Pusu v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Lko. 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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Mohd. Sarik Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Vikas Verma Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Alok Kumar Mitra Vs Union of India and Another

Sachendra Srivastava @ Pusu vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Lko. and 3 Others

Smt. Priyanka Singh vs Sujeet Kumar Singh

Ashish Kumar Srivastava @ Ashish Srivastava vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.