Dismissed

Guddu Yadav v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC3 Jan 2024/3112/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Anticipatory bail sought by an accused in a POCSO case involving a 14-year-old victim who alleged rape in her Section 164 statement; charge-sheet filed. The court held the gravity of the offence precluded anticipatory bail and dismissed the application.

What the court decided

AI extract

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

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:687

¶2

Court No. - 15

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 3112 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Guddu Yadav Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Hom Narayan Awasthi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Mohd. Faiz Alam Khan,J.

¶6

Learned A.G.A. informs that he has procured complete instructions in the matter, including upto date case diary, and charge-sheet has been filed in this case. He further informs that opposite party no. 2/complainant has been sufficiently/personally served at their end.

¶7

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

¶8

This application has been moved by the accused/applicant- Guddu Yadav for anticipatory bail in FIR/Case Crime No.089 of 2023, under Sections 354 and 506 IPC read with Section 7/8 POCSO Act lodged at Police Station Payagpur, District Bahraich.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that it is a case of false implication. The informant as well as victim in their statements have not stated the incident with clarity and contradictory statements have been given by them, making allegation against the applicant vague and highly improbable. It is further submitted that the applicant is a young-boy of 22 years of age and if he would be lodged in prison in connection with the present case, the same would not only ruin his reputation but his career also. It is also submitted that in support of allegation of sexual assault, there is no medical evidence as the prosecutrix has refused to undergo any medical examination. It is further submitted that the applicant is not having any criminal history and there is no apprehension that after being released on anticipatory bail he may flee from the course of law or may otherwise misuse the liberty.

¶10

On the other hand, learned A.G.A. opposes the prayer of the applicant on the ground that the age of the prosecutrix/victim is about 14 years 10 months and 8 days, therefore, she was not

¶11

major at the date and time of the incident and in her statement recorded under Section 164 CrPC she has specifically alleged commission of rape by the applicant.

¶12

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record, it is reflected that the prosecutrix/victim who appears to be star witness of the crime in her statement recorded under Section 164 CrPC has alleged commission of rape by the applicant. The age of the prosecutrix is 14 years and 10 months at the date and time of the incident. The charge-sheet appears to have been filed. The only circumstance of submission of charge-sheet may not be interpreted to the benefit of applicant when specific allegation of committing sexual assault has been levelled against him by the prosecutrix in her statement recorded under Section 164 CrPC. This Court is of the considered view that gravity of the offence would always be taken into consideration while considering the bail/anticipatory bail application of an accused. Thus, having regard to the gravity of the offence alleged against the applicant, no case for anticipatory bail is made out in favour of the applicant.

¶13

In result, the anticipatory bail application moved by the applicant - Guddu Yadav is hereb y dismissed .

¶14

However, mere rejection of anticipatory bail application of the applicant would not preclude the applicant from moving a regular bail application before the trial Court and, if the same is moved with promptness, to say within a week or two, the trial Court would be under an obligation to dispose of the same, strictly in accordance with law, with utmost expedition after providing an opportunity of being heard to the parties.

¶15

Let a copy of this order be immediately sent to the trial Court concerned for information.

¶16

Order Date :- 3.1.2024 MVS/-

¶17

Digitally signed by :- MANOJ VIKRAM SINGH CHAUHAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Guddu Yadav v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Guddu Yadav v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Basheer Ahmad Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

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

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

Balwant Singh Rautela Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Home, Lko. and Another

Deshraj and 5 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Secrett. Lko.

Sangam Verma @ Sangam Kumar Verma Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Sectt. Lko