Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 7, Cited by 2]

Allahabad High Court

Shilu Alias Shailendra Pandey vs State Of U.P. on 9 December, 2019

Author: Pritinker Diwaker

Bench: Pritinker Diwaker





HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?Court No. - 48
 

 
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 42803 of 2019
 

 
Applicant :- Shilu Alias Shailendra Pandey
 
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
 
Counsel for Applicant :- Ved Prakash Pandey
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
 

 
Hon'ble Pritinker Diwaker,J.
 

Heard Sri Ved Prakash Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Amit Sinha, learned A.G.A. for the State, Sri Surjeet Kumar for the complainant and perused the record.

This bail application under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the applicant seeking enlargement on bail during the trial in connection with Crime No. 279 of 2019, under Sections 376, 354, 452 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of Protection of Children From Sexual Offences Act, Police Station Jalalabad, District Shahjahanpur.

As per prosecution case, on 17.06.2019, FIR was lodged by Smt. Ramshree, maternal grand mother of the prosecutrix, alleging in it that when her maternal grand daughter, aged about 10 years, was sleeping in her rooftop, the applicant made an attempt to outrage her modesty. In 161 Cr.P.C. statement, the prosecutrix has clarified as to in what manner, she was subjected to molestation by the applicant. In 164 Cr.P.C. statement, she states that she was subject to rape by the applicant but the police authorities have not registered her correct report.

Learned counsel for the applicant in support of his application for bail submits that even if the entire prosecution case is taken as it is, at best offence under Section 354 I.P.C. is made out. He further submits that prosecutrix does not appears to be trustworthy and reliable.

Opposing the bail application, it has been argued by the State counsel that conduct of the applicant speaks about his act and a minor girl aged 10 years has been subjected to molestation.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case in particular the nature of evidence available on record, I am not inclined to release the applicant on bail.

The bail application is accordingly rejected.

However, the applicant would be at liberty to revive his application before the trial court after the court statement of the prosecutrix.

Order Date :- 9.12.2019 SK