Dismissed

Chhotu @ Naseem v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko. and Others

Allahabad HC17 May 2024BAIL/5683/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court rejected a bail application filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. The applicant was accused of rape against a minor (15 years). The court held that the prosecutrix's statements and the medical report supported the rape allegation. Since a co-accused had bail rejected, no good ground existed to grant bail.

What did the court decide?

Bail application rejected; applicant remains in custody.

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

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:38095

¶2

Court No. - 28

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 5683 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Chhotu @ Naseem

¶5

Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko. And Others Counsel for Applicant :- Riyaz Ahmad,Hemant Kumar Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Alok Kumar Dixit

¶6

Hon'ble Brij Raj Singh,J.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Sri V.K. Yadav, learned A.G.A. and Sri Alok Kumar Dixit, learned counsel for the complainant.

¶8

The present application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. has been filed seeking bail in FIR/ Case Crime No.81 of 2022, under Sections 363, 366, 376DA, 323 and 328 IPC and Section 5g/6 POCSO Act, Police Station Sairpur, District Lucknow.

¶9

Learned counsel for the accused-applicant submits that father of the prosecutrix lodged an FIR under Sections 363 and 366 IPC at Case Crime No.81 of 2022 on 08.08.022. As per the allegation of the FIR, it is mentioned that Neeraj and Nitin had enticed away his daughter and thereafter the investigation was done and the statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. was recorded, in which for the first time name of the applicant has come to light, otherwise he was not named in the FIR by the complainant. He further submits that the main accused Nitin and Neeraj have been exonerated while filing the charge sheet against the applicant and as per the medical report, hymen was old torn and healed and there is no force appears to be used by the accused. He also submits that the prosecutrix has been examined before the trial court and in the cross-examination, she has deposed that the applicant had tried to rescue her and has further submitted that there are various contradictions in the statements of the prosecutrix and it cannot be said that the applicant committed the rape against her.

¶10

On the other hand, learned counsel for the complainant

¶11

and the learned AGA have submitted that the statements recorded under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. indicate that there is allegation of rape levelled against the applicant and as per the medical report, age of the prosecutrix was 15 years and she was minor at the relevant time. It is further submitted that opinion in the medical report of the doctor is not going to support the case of the applicant and if the doctor has said that no use of forceful act is found, it does not mean that the allegation of rape is not proved. It is also submitted that the prosecutrix has deposed before the trial court in her examination-in-chief as well as in cross-examination that the applicant had committed rape against her will. It is also submitted that bail application of co-accused, Ashik Ali has been rejected by this Court vide order dated 18.05.2023 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.4577 of 2023 and the role of applicant is also similar to that of co-accused, Ashik Ali; therefore, the bail application of the applicant is liable to be rejected.

¶12

Considering the above facts and circumstances of the case; the argument that the statement of the prosecutrix recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. and the statement before the trial court indicates that the applicant has been named by the prosecutrix for committing the offence of rape against her; the argument that the prosecutrix was 15 years of age at the relevant time; the argument that the bail application of co-accused, Ashik Ali has been rejected, this Court does not find any good ground to enlarge the applicant on bail.

¶13

Bail application is accordingly rejected.

¶14

(Brij Raj Singh, J.)

¶15

Order Date :- 17.5.2024 Rao/-

¶16

Digitally signed by :- CHEBROLU SRINIVASA RAO High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Chhotu @ Naseem v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko. and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chhotu @ Naseem v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko. and 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

Similar cases

Ram Kailash vs State of U.P. Thru.the Addl. Secy. Home and 4 Others

Prashant Bhandari and Another vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin.Secy. Home and Another

Savita Nandan vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 3 Others

Faiz Alam @ Billu vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Civil Sectt. Lko

Deshraj Rawat and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. U.P. Civil Secrt. Lko.

Manish Chand Yadav vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.