Back
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
VIVEK KUMAR SINGH
CHAND BABU – Appellant
Versus
State – Respondent
BAIL/37617/2021
BAIL - POCSO ACT - FALSE IMPLICATION - [The court granted bail to the accused in a POCSO case, considering the delay in lodging the FIR, the lack of supporting evidence, and the overcrowding of jails during the pandemic.]
Fact of the Case:
The applicant was arrested and charged under Sections 376-D IPC and 3/4 POCSO Act for allegedly raping a minor girl. The applicant claimed that he was falsely implicated due to ulterior motives and that the medical examination report did not support the prosecution's version of events.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that there was a delay in lodging the FIR, that the medical examination report did not support the prosecution's version of events, and that the applicant had no criminal history. The court also considered the overcrowding of jails during the pandemic.
Issues: Whether the applicant was falsely implicated in the case.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the applicant had made out a prima facie case for bail. The court considered the delay in lodging the FIR, the lack of supporting evidence, and the overcrowding of jails during the pandemic.
Final Decision: The court granted bail to the applicant on the condition that he would not seek adjournments, would remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, and would not misuse the liberty of bail.
Court No. - 65
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 37617 of 2021
Applicant :- Chand Babu
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Pramod Kumar Dwivedi,Jagat Narayan Mishra
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Vivek Kumar Singh,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA, appearing for the
State and perused the material brought on record.
It has been contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that the
applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case due to ulterior
motive. It is next contended that incident was placed on 17.05.2021 while
the first information report has been lodged on 19.05.2021 for which no
proper explanation has been given by the complainant. The medical
examination report does not supported the prosecution version as per
medical report the doctor has opined that there is no sign of use of force,
no physical or external injury present at the time of medical examination.
Several other submissions in order to demonstrate the falsity of the
allegations made against the applicant have also been placed forth before
the Court. The circumstances which, according to the counsel, led to the
false implication of the accused has also been touched upon at length. It
has been assured on behalf of the applicant that he is ready to cooperate
with the process of law and shall faithfully make himself available before
the court whenever required. It has also been submitted that the applicant
is languishing in jail since 21.05.2021. It has been pointed out that the
applicant has no criminal history.
Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the prayer.
Courts have taken notice of the overcrowding of jails during the current
pandemic situation (Ref.: Suo Motu Writ Petition (c) No. 1/2020,
Contagion of COVID 19 Virus in prisons before the Supreme Court of
India). These circumstances shall also be factored in while considering
bail applications on behalf of accused persons.
Having heard the submissions of learned counsel of both sides, nature of
accusation and the severity of punishment in case of conviction and the
nature of supporting evidence, prima facie satisfaction of the Court in
support of the charge, reformative theory of punishment, and larger
mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India, the dictum of Apex
Court in the case of Dataram Singh v. State of U.P. and another, reported
in (2018) 2 SCC 22 and without expressing any opinion on the merit of
the case, I find it to be a case of bail.
Let applicant- Chand Babu, be released on bail in Case Crime No. 89 of
2021, under Sections- 376-D IPC and 3/4 POCSO Act, Police Station-
Gazipur, District- Fatehpur, on furnishing a personal bond and two
sureties of Rs. One Lac each (One should be of a family member)
before the magistrate/court concerned, subject to following conditions:-
(i) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not
seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses
are present in court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for
the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in
accordance with law.
(ii) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date
fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence,
without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under
Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code.
(iii) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in
order to secure his presence proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is
issued and the applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed
in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against
him, in accordance with law, under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal
Code.
(iv) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on
the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (i
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
