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

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

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

The applicant Billa @ Raja Ram is to be released on bail in FIR/Case Crime No. 231 of 2021 under Sections 302, 201, 377, 404, 411 IPC and Section 5/6 POCSO Act, Police Station Asiwan, District Unnao, on furnishing personal bonds and two reliable sureties of Rs.25,000/- each to the satisfaction of the court concerned, subject to conditions: (a) executing a bond to undertake to attend the hearings; (b) not committing any offence similar to that of which he is accused or suspected; and (c) not directly or indirectly making any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts or tampering with the evidence.

Issue for consideration

Whether the applicant, Billa @ Raja Ram, named in FIR/Case Crime No. 231 of 2021 under Sections 302, 201, 377, 404, 411 IPC and Section 5/6 POCSO Act (Police Station Asiwan, District Unnao), is entitled to be released on bail.

Court's answer

The applicant is entitled to be released on bail; accordingly, the bail application is allowed.

Ratio / Principle

Bail was granted because the applicant had been apprehended on the basis of two statements which were denied during the course of trial.

Key takeaways

There was nothing on record to demonstrate that the applicant, if enlarged on bail, would in any way adversely affect the trial; the Court granted bail without expressing any opinion on the merits.ratio¶5

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench), Pankaj Bhatia, J. — Bail allowed (order dated 1.2.2024) in Crl. Misc. Bail Application No. 930 of 2023: applicant Billa @ Raja Ram, accused in FIR/Case Crime No. 231 of 2021 under Sections 302, 201, 377, 404, 411 IPC and Section 5/6 POCSO Act, Police Station Asiwan, District Unnao, had been linked to the offence on the statements of Santosh Kumar and Rajesh, each claiming that the applicant had come (in Santosh's statement, along with his son Manoj) and had confessed to the crime. During trial, the informant (P.W.1) denied registering the FIR, and both Rajesh Kumar and Santosh denied giving the statements (the statement remaining on record with a supplementary affidavit). Holding that there was nothing on record to show that enlargement would adversely affect the trial, and without expressing any opinion on the merits, the Court allowed bail on a personal bond and two reliable sureties of Rs.25,000/- each, with conditions to attend hearings, abstain from similar offences, and refrain from inducement, threat or tampering with evidence.

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:9571

Court No. - 12

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 930 of 2023

Applicant :- Billa @ Raja Ram Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Home Lko. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Yogendra Kumar Tiwari Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J.

Heard learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned A.G.A. and perused the record. None turned up on behalf of the informant despite service of notice.

2 . Initially an FIR was lodged as a missing person report alleging that the son of the informant aged about 6 years had not come back from home, subsequently the body of the boy was found and on the basis of the statement of one Santosh Kumar, the applicant was linked with the offence in question. In the said statement, it was stated that the applicant had come along with son Manoj and has confessed to the commission of the offence. A similar statement was also given by one Rajesh, who also claimed that the applicant and his son had come and has confessed the crime.

3 . In the light of the said, the submission of the counsel for the applicant is that P.W. 1, the informant had denied the registering of FIR as it is evident from the statement. He further draws my attention to the statement of the witness Rajesh Kumar, who denied giving the statement. The said statement of the witness is on record along with the supplementary afÏdavit. Similarly one Santosh denied giving the statement. The applicant is in custody since 03.11.2021.

4. Learned A.G.A. opposed the bail prayer.

5. Considering the fact that the applicant was apprehended based upon the two statements, which have been denied during the course of trial. Considering the two statements recorded during trial coupled with the fact that 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 .

6. Let the applicant Billa @ Raja Ram be released on bail in FIR/ Case Crime No. 231 of 2021, under Sections 302, 201, 377, 404, 411 IPC and Section 5/6 POCSO Act, Police Station Asiwan, District Unnao, 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:

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

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

(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.

Order Date :- 1.2.2024 Arun

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