Jai Ram Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home… — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Allahabad HC (2024)

Jai Ram Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home… — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Allahabad HC (2024)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None — bail application rejected. Directions issued: trial court to record statements of the two eye witnesses (Smt. Usha Devi & Shri Narveer) within two months without unnecessary adjournment; SP, Lakhimpur Kheri to produce the witnesses; applicant free to revive bail plea after their statements are recorded.

Issue for consideration

Whether the applicant Jai Ram is entitled to be enlarged on bail in Case Crime No. 660 of 2022 under Sections 376 D.A. IPC and 5G/6(2) POCSO Act, 2012, PS Mohammadi, District Lakhimpur Kheri.

Court's answer

Bail application rejected: the Court found no good ground to enlarge the applicant on bail because the medical report on record corroborates the offence alleged against him prima facie and the two fact witnesses are yet to be examined.

Ratio / Principle

Trial Court directed to ensure that the statements of the two eye witnesses, Smt. Usha Devi & Shri Narveer, are recorded without unnecessary adjournment within two months.

Key takeaways

Superintendent of Police, Lakhimpur Kheri directed to ensure the two witnesses are produced for their deposition before the trial Court.ratio¶¶15
Applicant left at liberty to revive his bail plea after the statements of the said witnesses are recorded.ratio¶¶16

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench), Pankaj Bhatia, J. — Bail rejected. Applicant sought enlargement on bail in Case Crime No. 660 of 2022 (PS Mohammadi, District Lakhimpur Kheri) under Sections 376 D.A. IPC and 5G/6(2) POCSO Act, 2012, concerning an alleged offence of 10.09.2022 on the informant's sister aged about 15 years in a sugarcane field; the medical report recorded a freshly torn hymen and forceful penetration. Although the victim stated in cross-examination that she could not identify the accused at the time of the incident, two eye witnesses (Smt. Usha Devi & Shri Narveer) named in the charge sheet remained unexamined. Holding that the medical report prima facie corroborated the allegations and the two fact witnesses were yet to be examined, the Court found no good ground for bail and rejected the application; it directed the trial court to record the two witnesses' statements within two months without unnecessary adjournments, the SP, Lakhimpur Kheri to produce them, and left the applicant free to revive his bail plea after their statements are recorded. (Neutral Citation 2024:AHC-LKO:56868; Order Date 20.8.2024)

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:56868

Court No. - 12

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 159 of 2024

Applicant :- Jai Ram Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home, Lucknow And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Brijesh Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J.

Supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of the applicant is taken on record.

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA and perused the record. None appears for the opposite party no. 2 despite notice.

The applicant seeks enlargement on bail in Case Crime No. 660 of 2022, under Sections 376 D.A. IPC and 5G/6 (2) POCSO Act, 2012 registered at Police Station - Mohammadi, District - Lakhimpur Kheri.

In terms of the FIR, it was alleged that on 10.09.2022 at about 09:30 PM, the sister of the informant aged about 15 years was going to give food to her grandmother, when the accused named in the FIR including the applicant held her in a sugarcane field and thereafter committed wrong on her and when the mother and sister of the informant went to search her, all the said persons ran away. It was also stated that the sister of the informant was found in unconscious condition. The medical on record done of the victim, found the hymen to be freshly torn and the medical opinion was expressed that there are use of forceful penetration present on the victim.

Learned Counsel for the applicant argues that during the trial, the victim in her cross-examination has stated that she could not identify the accused at the time of the incident, however, from the record it transpires that there are two other eye witnesses named in the charge sheet.

Learned AGA has vehemently opposed the bail application and submitted that the crime committed by the accusedapplicant is heinous and the medical report affirms the prosecution story, therefore, the applicant is not entitled to be

enlarged on bail.

Considering the fact that the medical report on record corroborates the allegations of the offence, prima facie, alleged to have been committed by the applicant and the two fact witnesses are yet to be examined, therefore, this Court is of the view that there is no good ground to allow this bail application. In view thereof, the bail application is rejected .

However, the trial Court is directed to ensure that the statement of the two eye witnesses, Smt. Usha Devi & Shri Narveer are recorded without giving any unnecessary adjournment within a period of two months from today.

The Superintendent of Police, Lakhimpur Kheri is directed to ensure that the said two witnesses are produced for their deposition before the trial Court without fail.

The applicant would be at liberty to revive his bail plea after statement of the said witnesses are recorded.

Order Date :- 20.8.2024 Lokesh Kumar

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