Disposed

Raju v. State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Civil Secrt. Lko. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC23 Jan 2024ABAIL/113/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Applicant sought anticipatory bail in a molestation case under IPC and POCSO provisions. Court disposed of the application with a direction that if he surrenders within 15 days and files a bail application, the trial court must dispose of it promptly per Supreme Court guidelines.

What did the court decide?

Direction to trial court to decide bail application if applicant surrenders within 15 days; no bail decision made.

Raju vs State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home… — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:6276

¶2

Court No. - 15

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 113 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Raju Opposite Party :- State Of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Civil Secrt. Lko. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Ashish Raman Mishra 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 up-to-date case diary and the opposite party no.2(complainant) has also been served sufficiently/personally at their end. However, she is not represented.

¶7

Heard Shri Ashish Raman Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶8

The instant application has been moved by the applicant- Raju , in F.I.R./Case Crime No. 231 of 2023, under Sections 147, 323, 504, 506, 452, 354(B) I.P.C. and Section 7/8 P.O.C.S.O. Act, Police Station Risia, District Bahraich, with the prayer to enlarge him on anticipatory bail, as he is apprehending arrest in the above-mentioned case.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that it is a case of false implication. All the allegations which have been levelled in the F.I.R. are false, concocted and could not be believed. There is no corroboration of oral evidence with the medical evidence and while the allegations have been levelled that physical assault has also been made but no injury has been found on the person of victim. However, the same is not corroborated by any medical evidence, as the victim refused to undergo any medical examination.

¶10

It is also submitted that during the course of investigation applicant was given benefit of Section 41-A Cr.P.C. and was not arrested during the course of investigation and the charge sheet has been submitted without making arrest of him and all the charged offences wherein the charge sheet has been filed are punishable with up to seven years of imprisonment, however, the applicant is apprehending arrest by the Court as he is

¶11

apprehending that when he will appear before the trial court for the purpose of obtaining regular bail, the disposal of his bail application may take sometime and in the meantime he may be confined in prison and, thus, he may be arrested by the Court while he has not been arrested during the course of investigation.

¶12

Learned counsel for the applicant has relied on the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Siddharth v. State of UP : 2021 SCC OnLine SC 615, ' Aman Preet Singh Vs. C.B.I. through Director' : 2021 SCC OnLine SC 941 and in Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and others : (2021) 10 SCC 773.

¶13

It is next submitted that applicant is not having any criminal antecedents and charge sheet has also been submitted and there is no apprehension that after being released on anticipatory bail they may flee from the course of law or may otherwise misuse the liberty.

¶14

Learned A.G.A., however, opposes the prayer of anticipatory bail of the applicant on the ground that a 15 years old girl has been molested and having regard to the manner in which the modesty of a young girl has been outraged, the applicant is not entitled for any discretion.

¶15

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the record, it is reflected that in the first information report as well as in the statement of the prosecutrix recorded under Section 161 and 164 Cr.P.C., the allegation of outraging her modesty have been levelled, however, she appears to have refused to undergo any medical examination. The applicant was not arrested during the course of investigation and benefit of Section 41-A Cr.P.C. appears to have been given to him.

¶16

Thus, without commenting anything on the merits and demerits of the case and keeping in view the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Siddharth v. State of UP : 2021 SCC OnLine SC 615, Aman Preet Singh Vs. C.B.I. through Director : 2021 SCC OnLine SC 941 and in Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and others : (2021) 10 SCC 773, the instant anticipatory bail application moved on behalf of the applicant is disposed of with a direction to the trial court that if the applicant appears/surrenders before the trial court within 15 days from today and move an application for bail under Section 437/439 Cr.P.C., the trial court shall be under an obligation to dispose of the same, after providing an opportunity of being heard to the parties, strictly in accordance with law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Siddharth

¶17

(supra), Aman Preet Singh (supra) and in Satender Kumar Antil (supra).

¶18

Order Date :- 23.1.2024 Praveen

¶19

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

Raju v. State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Civil Secrt. Lko. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Raju v. State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Civil Secrt. 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Ayush Kumar Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, U.P. Govt. Lucknow

Jang Bahadur Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Sanjay Bajpai Vs State of U.P Thru. Addil. Chief Secy. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home Civil Secrt. Lko.

Dr. Vijay Kumar Sharma Vs Ashish Rawat Asst. Director (Pmla) Directorate of Enforcement Lko.

Aman Rajput Vs the State of U.P. Thru. Prin.Secy. Home Deptt.

Ravi Shankar Tiwari Vs State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Govt. Civil Secrt. Lko.