Dismissed

Manoj Kumar v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC12 Nov 2024BAILC/512/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bail cancellation application challenging an order granting bail to an accused in a POCSO and rape case. The applicant, alleging false age manipulation and lack of victim corroboration, sought bail cancellation; the court dismissed the application noting bail cancellation requires cogent and overwhelming reasons which were absent.

What did the court decide?

Bail cancellation application was dismissed; bail granted to accused is retained.

Manoj Kumar vs State of U.P. and Another — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:177475

¶2

Court No. - 66

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL CANCELLATION APPLICATION No. - 512 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Manoj Kumar Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Braham Singh,Sushil Kumar Tewari Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Sameer Jain,J.

¶6

Heard Shri Braham Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri Suresh Bahadur Singh, learned A.G.A. for the Staterespondent.

¶7

The instant bail cancellation application has been filed seeking cancellation of the bail granting order of opposite party no.2 dated 27.08.2024 passed by Additional District and Sessions Judge/Special Judge (POCSO Act), Bijnor in Case Crime No.186 of 2024, under Sections 363, 366-A, 376(3) IPC & Sections 3/4(2) POCSO Act, Police Station Mandawar, District Bijnor, during pendency of the trial in the court below.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant is the informant of the case and he has filed the instant bail cancellation application on the ground that court concerned wrongly granted bail to opposite party no.2.

¶9

He further submits that from the school record of the victim i.e. daughter of the applicant, it is apparent that she was minor aged about fourteen years and however she in her both the statements recorded under Sections 161 and 164 did not make any allegation of rape against the opposite party no.2 but from Annexure No.5 of the affidavit, it reflects that opposite party no.2 and victim both have performed marriage and therefore, it reflects that the victim

¶10

gave her both the statements under pressure and court concerned did not consider this fact.

¶11

He further submits that from Annexure No.8 of the affidavit, it reflects that the marriage of the applicant and his wife i.e. parents of the victim was solemnized in the year 2007, therefore, victim cannot be about 21 years old as mentioned by C.M.O. concerned in his report and it reflects that opposite party no.2 anyhow manipulated the C.M.O. concerned and obtained fake age certificate of the victim with regard to her radiological age.

¶12

He further submits that therefore, considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case discussed above bail granted to the opposite party no.2 by the court concerned should be cancelled. 7. Learned A.G.A. however submits that from the school record, it reflects that victim was minor hardly aged about fourteen years but could not dispute the fact that victim in her both the statements recorded under Sections 161 and 164 did not state anything against the opposite party no.2.

¶13

I have heard learned counsel for both the parties and perused the record of the case.

¶14

From the record, it reflects that as per the school record of the victim, she was around fourteen years of age at the time of alleged incident of rape and as per the report of C.M.O. concerned her radiological age was 21 years but from the record, it also reflects that victim in her both the statements recorded under Sections 161 and 164 did not state anything against the opposite party no.2 and after considering this fact court concerned granted bail to opposite party no.2.

¶15

Further, victim in her both the statements recorded under Sections 161 and 164 did not state anything against the opposite party no.2 rather she made allegation against applicant i.e.

¶16

informant of the case (i.e. her father).

¶17

Further, law is settled that it is easy to reject a bail application but it is very difficult to cancel a bail already granted and for cancellation of bail, very cogent and overwhelming reasons are necessary, which in my considered view is missing in the present matter..

¶18

Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, discussed above, in my view, the instant bail cancellation application is devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed . Order Date :- 12.11.2024 Zafar

¶19

Digitally signed by :- MOHAMMAD ZAFAR ANSARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Manoj Kumar v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manoj Kumar v. State of U.P. and Another

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

Dhamendra Yadav vs State of Up and Another

Rajesh Kashyap vs State of Up and Another

Gayatri Devi vs State of Up and Another

Manish Kumar Verma @ Uday vs State of U.P. and Another

Dr Fatima Jehra vs State of U.P. and Another

Compliant of Case Crime No 91/2024 vs State of Up and Another