Allowed

Shiva Sagar v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC18 Feb 2025BAIL/5100/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Regular bail application in a POCSO/BNS case concerning a minor victim; the court granted bail on personal bond and two sureties without expressing any opinion on the merits.

What did the court decide?

Applicant Shiva Sagar released on bail on furnishing personal bond and two sureties, subject to conditions including non-tampering and attendance at trial.

Shiva Sagar vs State of U.P. and 3 Others — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Allahabad HC (2025)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:23098

¶2

Court No. - 65

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 5100 of 2025

¶4

Applicant :- Shiva Sagar Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Ashutosh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.

¶6

List has been revised.

¶7

Heard Sri Ashutosh, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Shailesh Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the informant as well as Sri Jai Kishan Chaurasia, learned State Law Officer for the State and perused the material placed on record.

¶8

Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No.438 of 2024, under Sections 137(2), 64(1), 65(1) B.N.S. and 3/4(2) POCSO Act, Police Station- Milak, District- Rampur, during the pendency of trial.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the applicant is absolutely innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. The FIR is delayed by about four days and there is no explanation of the said delay caused. The victim is a consenting party as is but evident from her statement recorded U/s 183 B.N.S.S. The victim by her looks seems to be major, although as per the school certificate of Class-7, her date or birth is stated to be 6.4.2009, as such, her age comes out to be 15 years, 07 months and 15 days. The said document is not admissible in light of Section 94 of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act. There is no medical corroboration of the said incident.

¶10

Several other submissions have been made on behalf of the applicant to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against him. The circumstances which, as per counsel, led to the false implication of the applicant have also been touched upon at length. There is no criminal antecedent of the applicant. The applicant is languishing in jail since 22.12.2024 and he is ready to cooperate with trial. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not

¶11

misuse the liberty of bail.

¶12

Learned counsel for the informant and learned State Law Officer have vehemently opposed the bail application.

¶13

In the case of P. Yuvaprakash vs State Rep. by Inspector of Police, AIR 2023 SC 3525 the Supreme Court has observed that in the absence of records relating to the birth of the victim, no other documents except the Matriculation or equivalent certificate from the concerned examination board or certificate by a corporation, municipal authority or a Panchayat can be relied upon to ascertain the age of the victim.

¶14

In light of the judgement of the Supreme Court passed in Niranjan Singh and another vs Prabhakar Rajaram Kharote and others AIR 1980 SC 785, this Court has avoided detailed examination of the evidence and elaborate documentation of the merits of the case as no party should have the impression that his case has been prejudiced. A prima facie satisfaction of case is needed but it is not the same as an exhaustive exploration of the merits in the order itself.

¶15

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, the evidence on record, and taking into consideration the settled law of the Supreme Court passed in Satender Kumar Antil vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and Ors., 2022 INSC 690 and Manish Sisodia vs. Directorate of Enforcement, 2024 INSC 595 and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed .

¶16

Let the applicant- Shiva Sagar , who is involved in aforementioned case crime be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions. Further, before issuing the release order, the sureties be verified.

¶17

(i) The applicant shall not tamper with evidence.

¶18

(ii) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the Trial Court on dates fixed for (1) opening of the case, (2) framing of charge and (3) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C./351 B.N.S.S. If in the opinion of the Trial Court absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the Trial Court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law.

¶19

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a

¶20

ground for cancellation of bail.

¶21

It is made clear that observations made in granting bail to the applicant shall not in any way affect the learned trial Judge in forming his independent opinion based on the testimony of the witnesses.

¶22

Order Date :- 18.2.2025 Vikas

¶23

(Justice Krishan Pahal)

¶24

Digitally signed by :- VIKAS VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Shiva Sagar v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shiva Sagar v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Anwar vs State of U.P.

Amresh vs State of U.P.

Suryakant vs State of U.P. and Another

Ravi Kashyap vs State of U.P.

Satyam Kumar vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Anupam vs State of U.P.