Bail application by applicant accused with co-accused of threatening, assaulting and misbehaving with a 14-15 year old prosecutrix under FIR involving IPC and POCSO offences; bail rejected given evidence of complicity and medico legal findings.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:47606
Court No. - 30
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 7255 of 2024 Applicant :- Golu @ Martand Yadav Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home And 3 Others
Counsel for Applicant :- Prem Prakash Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Om Prakash Shukla,J.
1. Vakalatnama filed on behalf of the complainant by Shri Ravindra Kumar Yadav, Advocate, is taken on record.
2. Heard Shri Prem Prakash Singh, learned Counsel for the applicant, Shri Mayank Sinha, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State and Shri Ravindra Kumar Yadav, learned Counsel for the complainant.
3. The applicant seeks enlargement on bail in FIR No. 0056 of 2024, under Sections 376, 323, 420, 506, 120-B I.P.C. and Section 3/4 POCSO Act, Police Station Jahageerganj, District Ambedkar Nagar.
4. As per the prosecution case, on 14.01.2024, when the prosecutrix had gone to the house of relative of her uncle, wherein at 04:00 p.m., when she was changing her dress, coaccused Anurag, who was the son of brother-in-law of her uncle, clicked her naked photo from his mobile quietly. After three days, co-accused Anurag informed the prosecutrix on her phone that he had clicked her naked photo and if she gave him Rs.5000/-, he would delete it. As the prosecutrix was very scared, therefore, she gave Rs.5000/- to co-accused Anurag. In the night of 02:00 a.m. on 12.03.2024, co-accused Anurag came along with three friends and made phone call to her and when the prosecutrix came, co-accused Anurag had started threatening her and his one friend Golu Yadav misbehaved with her and also assaulted her and threatened that if she made complaint against anyone, she would be killed.
5. Learned Counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant has been implicated in the case due to village partybandi. The family of the prosecutrix and her uncle were at loggers head over property dispute and co-accused Anurag was relative of the uncle of the prosecutrix. According to learned Counsel, being friend of co-accused Anurag, applicant has falsely been implicated in the case. Applicant is pursuing D.Pharma Course and the allegations levelled in the F.I.R. is absolutely false and concocted. Applicant is in jail since 14.01.2024. Therefore, he prays that the applicant be enlarged on bail.
6. Per contra, learned Additional Government Advocate and learned Counsel for the complainant have opposed the prayer of bail and have submitted that as per the F.I.R., it was the accused who misbehaved with the prosecutrix and also assaulted her, therefore, it cannot be said at this stage that accused was not involved in the aforesaid incident. The investigation of the case is continuing and the statement of the prosecutrix under Section 164 Cr.P.C. has also been recorded. Moreso, in the medico legal examination report annexed as Annexure No.6 of this application, pain and swelling in the right hand index finger size 7 c.m. x 5 c.m; contusion on left buttock 10 cm.x 4 c.m. were found on the body of the prosecu and the age of the prosecutrix is 14-15 years. Therefore, he prays that the applicant is not entitled to be enlarged on bail.
7. Considering the nature of the offence, evidence on record regarding complicity of the applicant including the medico legal report annexed as Annexure No.6 of the application, this Court is of the view that it is not a fit case for bail.
8. Accordingly, the present bail application of the applicant involved in FIR No. 0056 of 2024, under Sections 376, 323,
420, 506, 120-B I.P.C. and Section 3/4 POCSO Act, Police Station Jahageerganj, District Ambedkar Nagar is hereby rejected .
( Om Prakash Shukla, J.)
Order Date :- 12.7.2024 Ajit
Digitally signed by :- AJIT KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the applicant Golu @ Martand Yadav should be enlarged on regular bail for offences under IPC and POCSO Act in FIR No. 0056 of 2024.
3 provisions across 3 enactments
Golu @ Martand Yadav
State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home
State Of U.P. (Other Opposite Parties 2 and 3)
Om Prakash Shukla
As recorded by the court registry
2 orders share this CNR
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
