1. Home
  2. /
  3. High Court Of Judicature at Allahabad
  4. /
  5. 2019
  6. /
  7. January

Savej vs State Of U P

High Court Of Judicature at Allahabad|21 February, 2019


Court No. - 42
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 7286 of 2019 Applicant :- Savej Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Manoj Kumar Rai,Vimlendu Tripathi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Ram Krishna Gautam,J.
Heard over bail application moved by Savej in Case Crime No. 103 of 2018, under Sections 452, 323, 376-D I.P.C. and 5/6 POCSO Act, Police Station Ratanpuri, District Muzaffar Nagar.
Learned counsel for the applicant argued that accused applicant is innocent. He has been falsely implicated in this very case crime number. This occurrence was informed by way of G.D. entry at police station concerned that there had some dispute in between few villagers and informant Saukeen, in which he injured and after getting medical treatment he will get case lodged. This G.D. entry was of date 25.8.2018 at 9:27 A.M. Subsequently report was got lodged on 15.8.2018 at 19:08 P.M. upon report of Shaukeen under Sections 452, 354, 323, 506 I.P.C. and 7/8 POCSO Act against Sahbaj and Savej with contention that on 25.8.2018 when informant's mother Shahnaz and sister Afsana was at sleep in house of uncle Ikramuddin at about 4:30 A.M., Shahbaj son of Jarif and Savej son of Jarif molested Afsana, which was protested by her and informant along with other family members were awaken, under protest Shahbaj and Savej attacked over informant, resulting injury to him. Threat was extended by both of them. They managed to run from spot. Afsana was of 15 years, hence, this report. Subsequently, statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. was got recorded in which accusation of rape was assigned to Shahbaj and under Section 164 Cr.P.C., this was assigned to both including present applicant, hence, under all those variation and no criminal antecedents, bail has been prayed for.
Learned A.G.A. for the State has vehemently opposed the bail.
From the very perusal of order of trial Judge, it is apparent that charge-sheet for offence of rape was not filed against present accused-applicant nor it was said by prosecutrix in her statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., hence, reiterated by Medical Officer who had firstly attended her. In both of those statements accusation of commission of rape has been assigned to only Shahbaj but Court vide its order dated has concluded for levelling charge for offence of rape against present accused-applicant. In medical examination prosecutrix has been held to be of 18 years of medical age.
Under above facts and circumstances and without commenting on merit, a case for bail is made out.
Let the applicant Savej be released on bail Case Crime No. 219 of 2018, under Sections 452, 323, 376-D, 506 I.P.C. and 5/6 POCSO Act, Police Station Ratanpuri, District Muzaffar Nagar, on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of magistrate/court concerned, subject to following conditions:-
(i) The applicant will co-operate with the trial and remain present personally on each and every date fixed for framing of charge, recording of evidence as well as recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. or through counsel on other dates and in case of absence without sufficient cause, it will be deemed that he is abusing the liberty of bail enabling the court concerned to take necessary action in accordance with the provisions of Section 82 Cr.P.C. or Sections 174A and 229A I.P.C.
(ii) The applicant will not tamper with the prosecution evidence and will not delay the disposal of trial in any manner whatsoever.
(iii) The applicant will not indulge in any unlawful activities.
The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be verified by court concerned and in case of breach of any of the conditions mentioned above, court concerned will be at liberty to cancel the bail and send the applicant to prison.
Order Date :- 21.2.2019 Kamarjahan
Disclaimer: Above Judgment displayed here are taken straight from the court; Vakilsearch has no ownership interest in, reservation over, or other connection to them.

Savej vs State Of U P


High Court Of Judicature at Allahabad

21 February, 2019
  • Ram Krishna Gautam
  • Manoj Kumar Rai Vimlendu Tripathi