Ranjeet Prasad v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC27 May 2024BAIL/5770/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bail application of a man charged under Sections 363, 366, 376DA IPC and Sections 5(g)/6 POCSO in Ayodhya. The court found the prosecutrix's evidence unrecorded, directed the trial court to record it within 21 days per Section 35 POCSO mandate, and listed the matter for further consideration with a status report.

What did the court decide?

Trial court directed to record and examine the child/prosecutrix's evidence within 21 days; counter affidavits permitted; matter listed for week commencing 24 June 2024.

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

¶1

Court No. - 11

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 5770 of 2024

¶3

Applicant :- Ranjeet Prasad Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Neera Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned AGA for the State.

¶6

Learned AGA has informed that notice upon the complainant/ informant has been served but no one has appeared. Further, charge sheet has been filed on 18.01.2024.

¶7

As per learned counsel for the applicant, the present applicant is in jail since 12.12.2023 in Case Crime No.429 of 2023, under Sections 363, 366, 376 DA of IPC and Section 5 (g)/6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, Police Station - Cantt., District- Ayodhya.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the present applicant has been falsely implicated in the case as he has not committed any offence as alleged.

¶9

On being asked from the learned counsel for the applicant as to whether evidence of the child/ prosecutrix has been recorded by the learned Trial Court or not, it has been informed, on the basis of instructions, that statement of the child/ prosecutrix has not been recorded till date.

¶10

Having considered the aforesaid statement of learned counsel for the applicant, this Court is unable to comprehend as to why the learned Trial Court does not follow the specific statutory mandate of Section 35 (1) of the POCSO Act wherein it has been directed that the evidence of the prosecutrix shall be recorded within a period of 30 days from the date of taking cognizance of the offence and reasons for delay, if any, shall be recorded by the trial court. Further, as per Section 35 (2) of the POCSO Act, the Trial Court shall complete the trial, as far as possible, within a period of one year from the date of taking cognizance of the offence.

¶11

Therefore, in view of the above, learned Trial Court is

¶12

directed to record the evidence of the child/ prosecutrix and to examine her within a period of 21 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order ensuring the presence of the prosecutrix, as per law.

¶13

Let copy of this order be provided to the learned Trial Court within three working days through District & Sessions Judge, Ayodhya by the Registry of this Court for its compliance.

¶14

List in the week commencing 24^th June, 2024 within top ten cases.

¶15

In the meantime, learned counsel for the opposite parties may file counter affidavit.

¶16

By that date, learned Trial Court shall file current status report of the trial.

¶17

Learned counsel for the applicant may also file certified copy of the order sheet to show status of the trial.

¶18

[Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.]

¶19

Order Date :- 27.5.2024 RBS/-

¶20

Digitally signed by :- RAM BIR SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Ranjeet Prasad v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ranjeet Prasad v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Faiz Ahmad Vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Secy. Home Lko.

Dileep Verma alias D.K. alias Avinash alias Chaudhary Vs The State of U.P. through Principal Secretary Home Govt. of U.P. Civil Secretariat, Lucknow.

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

Mohd. Sarik Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Vikas Verma Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Alok Kumar Mitra Vs Union of India and Another