Rohan Vs State of Up and 3 Others — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Allahabad HC (2025)

Rohan Vs State of Up and 3 Others — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Allahabad HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

Issue for consideration

Whether the bailable warrant dated 18.07.2024 passed by the Session Judge should be quashed and the Trial Court directed to treat the surety earlier furnished on 24-06-2021 (for Section 354 IPC and Sections 9/10 POCSO Act) as covering the subsequently added offences under Section 376 IPC and Sections 3/4 POCSO Act, and whether the proceedings of 18.07.2024 should be stayed. +1 more

Court's answer

No good ground existed to entertain the present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C.; as a result, the application fails and is liable to be dismissed, and was accordingly dismissed.

Ratio / Principle

This Court accepted the preliminary objection of the learned A.G.A., holding that the objections raised in opposition to the application were clearly borne out from the record and could not be dislodged by counsel for the applicant; since the applicant had not yet been enlarged on bail under the added Sections, acceptance of the previously submitted bail bonds under the added Sections did not arise.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court (Rajeev Misra, J.) dismissed, under Section 482 Cr.P.C., an application by the accused (applicant-Rohan) in S.T. No. 305 of 2023 (State of U.P. vs. Rohan), arising out of Case Crime No. 161 of 2021, P.S. Handia, District Prayagraj, pending before the Additional Session Judge/Special Court (POCSO Act), Prayagraj. The applicant sought quashing of the bailable warrant dated 18.07.2024 passed by the Session Judge and a direction that the surety already deposited on 24-06-2021 for the offences under Section 354 IPC and Sections 9/10 POCSO Act be treated as covering the subsequently added offences under Section 376 IPC and Sections 3/4 POCSO Act, together with a stay of the proceedings dated 18.07.2024. The learned A.G.A. raised a preliminary objection that, the applicant not having yet been enlarged on bail under the added Sections, the acceptance of the previously submitted bail bonds under the added Sections did not arise. Counsel for the applicant could not overcome the objection. Holding that the A.G.A.'s objections were clearly borne out from the record and that no good ground existed to entertain the application, the Court dismissed it.

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:13993

Court No. - 71

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 37981 of 2024

Applicant :- Rohan Opposite Party :- State Of Up And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Kumari Meena,Ripu Soodan Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.

Heard Mr. Ripu Soodan Yadav, learned counsel for applicant and learned A.G.A. for State.

Perused the recorded.

Applicant-Rohan has approached this Court by means of present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. with the following prayer:-

"It is further prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be graciously be pleased to quash the bailable warrant dated 18.07.2024 passed by Session Judge and directed to Trial Court to consider the earlier surety in offence added section 376 Jha I.P.C. and 3/4 POCSO Act which has already deposited on 24-06-2021 by the applicant in offence under section 354 IPC and 9/10 POCSO Act in S.T. No. 305 of 2023 (State of U.P. Vs. Rohan) arising out of Case Crime no. 161 of 2021 added section 376 Jha and 3/4 POCSO Act P.S. Handia District -Prayagraj, pending in the Additional Session Judge/Special POCSO Act Prayagraj.

It is further prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be graciously be pleased to Stay the proceeding of 18.07.2024 passed by Session Judge and direct to Trial Court to consider the earlier surety in offence added section 376 Jha I.P.C. and 3/4 POCSO Act which has already deposited on 24-06-2021 by the applicant in offence under section 354 IPC and 9/10 POCSO Act in S.T. No. 305 of 2023 (State of U.P. Vs. Rohan) arising out of Case Crime no. 161 of 2021 added section 376 Jha and 3/4 POCSO Act P.S. Handia District -Prayagraj pending in the Additional Session Judge/ Special POCSO Act Prayagraj. And or pass further Order or direction which this Hon'ble Court deem fit and proper as the circumstances of the case."

At the very outset, the learned A.G.A. has raised a preliminary objection by submitting that since applicant has yet not been enlarged on bail under the added Sections by Court below, therefore, the acceptance of previously submitted bail bonds under the added Sections does not arise. As such, the present application is liable to be dismissed.

When confronted with above, the learned counsel for applicant could not overcome the same.

Having heard the learned counsel for applicant, the learned A.G.A. for State and upon perusal of record, this Court finds that the objections raised by the learned A.G.A. in opposition to this application are clearly borne out from the record and further the same could not be dislodged by the learned counsel for applicant with reference to the record. As such, no good ground exists to entertain the present application.

As a result, the present application fails and is liable to be dismissed.

It is, accordingly, dismissed .

Order Date :- 24.1.2025 Vinay

Digitally signed by :- VINAY KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad