Allowed

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

Allahabad HC2 Apr 2024BAIL/3685/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a bail application under Sections 376 IPC and POCSO Act, the Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench) allowed the applicant's release on bail. The court held that prima facie evidence, including medical reports, suggests penetrative sexual assault is missing, warranting bail after nearly four years of custody.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail with personal bond and two sureties of Rs.20,000/- each subject to standard conditions.

Barati Lal Alias Barati vs State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy… — Narcotics (NDPS) | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:28660

¶2

Court No. - 12

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 3685 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Barati Lal Alias Barati Opposite Party :- State Of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Civil Secrt. Lko. And And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Arvind Kumar Verma,Anil Kumar,Manoj Kumar Srivastava

¶5

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶6

Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J.

¶7

1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA and perused the record. None has appeared for respondent no.2 despite notice.

¶8

2. The applicant seeks enlargement on bail in FIR No.527 of 2020, under Section 376 IPC & Section 5M/6 of POCSO Act, P.S. Pihani, District Hardoi.

¶9

3. This is the second bail application of the present applicant. The first bail application was rejected on 08.09.2022 as not pressed.

¶10

4. While arguing the present second bail application, learned counsel for the applicant argues that in terms of the FIR it was alleged that on 14.09.2020, the daughter of the informant aged about 7 years was called by the applicant who was then aged about 55 years and was told to get a bundle of Bidi and when she came back, the applicant misbehaved with her and asked her to hold his private parts and also touched his private parts with the private parts of the girl.

¶11

5. In terms of the said allegation, my attention is drawn to the statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C., wherein an assertion was made by the victim with regard to penetrative sexual assault on her. In the statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C., a similar statement was made.

¶12

6. Learned counsel for the applicant then draws my attention to the medical on record which demonstrates that on medical examination, the hymen was found to be present. He also draws my attention to the statement of the victim recorded during trial wherein she stated that there was a dispute between her family members and family member of the applicant with regard to Eucalyptus tree. She also stated that she never went to the house of the applicant.

¶13

7. In the light of the said, it is argued that the documents and the evidence on record clearly demonstrates that it was not a case of penetrative sexual assault defined under Section 3 & 5 of POCSO Act and in the worst case scenario, it will be an offence under Section 7 & 8 of POCSO Act wherein the maximum punishment prescribed is five years and the applicant is in custody since 21.09.2020.

¶14

8. Learned AGA has opposed the bail application by arguing that the age of the victim is around 7 years and considering the fact that the applicant is aged about 64 years, no sympathy can be shown to the applicant considering the nature of the allegations levelled in the FIR.

¶15

9. Considering the documents on record and the arguments raised at the Bar coupled with the averments made in the FIR and thereafter recorded during trial as well as the fact that the medical report on record, prima-facie , establishes that penetrative sexual assault is missing, and considering the punishment prescribed under Section 7 & 8 of the POCSO Act - which is five years and the applicant is in custody since almost three and a half year and has no criminal antecedents - as such, the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail. In view thereof, the application is allowed.

¶16

10. Let the applicant Barati Lal alias Barati be released on bail in aforesaid FIR number on his furnishing a personal bond with two sureties of Rs.20,000/- each to the satisfaction of court concerned with the following conditions:

¶17

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

¶18

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

¶19

(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 officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶20

Order Date :- 9.4.2024 nishant

¶21

Digitally signed by :- NISHANT MOHAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Barati Lal Alias Barati v. State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Civil Secrt. Lko. and 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

Mushtaque Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Binod Vs State of U.P. through Secretary Home Department Civil Secretariat, Lucknow

Naveen Jaiswal Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Sumit Kashyap vs State of U.P. Thru Addl. Chief Secy. Home Deptt. Lko

Premavati vs State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Govt. Civil Secrt. Lko.

M/S Emerson Climate Technology India Pvt. Ltd., Lucknow Thru. Authorised Signatory Dhirendra Kumar vs Commissioner Commercial Tax Deptt., Lucknow U.P.