Allowed

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

Allahabad HC12 Sept 2024BAIL/9676/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a bail application for charges of penile insertion alleging sexual assault on a child, the High Court allowed bail as the medical report did not support prosecution allegations and substantial variance existed in victim statements.

What did the court decide?

Released on bail with personal bond and two sureties of Rs. 20,000/- each on specified conditions.

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

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:63237

¶2

Court No. - 12

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 9676 of 2024 Applicant :- Gaya Prasad Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Deptt. Of Home Lko. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Arun Kumar Gupta,Richa Sharma Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J.

¶5

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

¶6

2. This is the second bail application on behalf of the applicant seeking enlargement on bail in FIR No.202 of 2023, under Section 377 IPC & Section 5(m)/6 of POCSO Act, P.S. Kursi, District Barabanki.

¶7

3. The first bail application was withdrawn on 19.06.2024 with a liberty to pursue second bail before the trial Court which has now been rejected, as such, the present bail application has been filed.

¶8

4. In terms of the FIR registered on 31.07.2023 under Section 377 IPC read with Section 5m/6 of POCSO Act, it was alleged that son of the informant aged about 10 years had gone to the school and around 7 to 8 days ago, the applicant had allegedly inserted finger in the anal region of the child which was informed by the child after certain time, as such, the FIR was registered after some delay on 31.07.2023. In the statements under Section 161 & 164 Cr.P.C., the victim supported the prosecution, however, in the statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C., it was specifically stated by the victim that it was a case for penile insertion in the anal region. The medical of the victim done on 01.08.2023 did not support the prosecution and no mark was seen on the anal region also.

¶9

5. Learned AGA has opposed the bail application.

¶10

6. Considering the medical on record not supporting the allegation and there being substantial variance in the two statements and the material to corroborate the allegation of penetrative sexual assault as defined under Section 3 of POCSO Act apparently being missing, the applicant who is in custody since 02.08.2023 and has no criminal history, is entitled to be enlarged on bail. In view thereof, the application is allowed.

¶11

7. Let the applicant Gaya Prasad 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:

¶12

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

¶13

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

¶14

(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.

¶15

Order Date :- 12.9.2024

¶16

nishant

¶17

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

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gaya Prasad v. State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Deptt. of Home 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Guddu Nishad Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. and 3 Others

Rajneesh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko and 3 Others

Shahbaz Khan @ Shahbaz Ahmad Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Lko

Kamlesh vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Civil Sectt. Lko

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

Gorakhi Rana vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Civil Sectt. Home Deptt. Lko