Allowed

Suraj v. State of Up and 3 Others

Allahabad HC21 Jan 2025BAIL/953/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Regular bail application in a POCSO case involving alleged kidnapping and rape of a minor. The court noted the margin of error in ossification tests and granted bail without expressing opinion on merits.

What did the court decide?

Applicant Suraj released on bail on furnishing personal bond with two sureties, subject to conditions against tampering and attendance at trial.

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

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:10178

¶2

Court No. - 65

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 953 of 2025

¶4

Applicant :- Suraj Opposite Party :- State Of Up And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Rahul Yadav,Shaiwal Kumar Gupta Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.

¶6

List has been revised.

¶7

Learned A.G.A. has informed that notice to the informant has been served on 13.1.2025.

¶8

Heard Sri Rahul Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Amit Kumar, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record.

¶9

Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 340 of 2024, under Sections 363, 366, 376(3) I.P.C. and 3/4(2) POCSO Act, Police Station- Khuttar, District- Shahjahanpur, during the pendency of trial.

¶10

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 164 Cr.P.C. The victim by her looks seems to be major, although, as per the ossification test report her age comes out to be 17 years.

¶11

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 30.8.2024 and he is ready to cooperate with trial. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶12

Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the bail application.

¶13

The Supreme Court in Jaya Mala vs. State of J & K, (1982) 2 SCC 538 and Mohd. Imran Khan vs. State (Govt. of NCT of

¶14

Delhi), (2011) 10 SCC 192 has opined that the radiologist cannot predict the correct date of birth rather there is a long margin of 1 to 2 years on either side.

¶15

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.

¶16

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 .

¶17

Let the applicant- Suraj , 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.

¶18

(i) The applicant shall not tamper with evidence.

¶19

(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.

¶20

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a 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 :- 21.1.2025/ Vikas

¶23

(Justice Krishan Pahal)

¶24

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

Suraj v. State of Up and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Suraj v. State of Up 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

Sueb vs State of U.P.

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

Smt Vineeta vs State of U.P.

Harinaam Kori vs State of U.P.

Saurabh Yadav Alias Saurav vs State of U.P.

Anshuman Singh vs State of U.P.