Allahabad High Court
Sayeem @ Sameer vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others on 13 March, 2023
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 72 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 1447 of 2023 Applicant :- Sayeem @ Sameer Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Rajesh Kumar Singh,Prabhakar Pal Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Anees Baig,Anwar Hussain Hon'ble Mrs. Sadhna Rani (Thakur),J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and perused the record.
The second bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. has been moved by the applicant - Sayeem @ Sameer to enlarge him on bail in Case Crime No. 420 of 2020 under Sections 363, 366, 376 I.P.C. and 3/4 POCSO Act, Police Station Jalesar, District Etah.
It is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that in compliance of court's order he is filing 'nikahnama' of the victim along with supplementary affidavit. The same be kept on record.
Admittedly, this is the second bail application of the applicant. His first bail application was rejected by this court vide order dated 29.08.2022 whereby the court found that as per school leaving certificate the age of the victim on the date of incident was only 14 years. Thus, her consent regarding 'nikah' or establishing physical relations with the applicant was immaterial. As per order dated 29.08.2022 there was no 'nikahnama' on record, now, the 'nikahnama' has been filed in compliance of court's order. As per medical report, the age of the victim was 18-19 years at the time of incident. The accused is languishing in jail since 11.01.2022. Hence, prayer for bail is made.
Learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 opposed the bail application.
From perusal of the previous order dated 29.08.2022, it is clear that the argument was made at that time that the 'nikah' of the victim was solemnized with the applicant as per wishes of her father but now her father has lodged this FIR for the reasons best known to him. As per order dated 29.08.2022 it was also found that 'nikahnama' was not on record, though, today 'nikahnama' has been filed by the learned counsel for the applicant along with supplementary affidavit but in the 'nikahnama' as per argument made at the time of the disposal of the first bail application, the signatures of the father of the victim are not there. So, a girl who is said to be 14 years of age, solemnizes marriage with the applicant even if the marriage is with the consent of her father, though, it is not the case, her 'nikah' cannot be said to be a ground for second bail of the applicant, who is an alleged accused of the offence under Sections 363, 366 and 376 IPC.
Thus, after perusing the record in the light of submission advanced at the bar, taking overall view of the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature of accusation and the period of detention already undergone without commenting on the merit of the case, I do not find it a fit case for bail.
The second bail application is hereby rejected.
However, the trial court is directed to expedite the hearing and decide the case being Case Crime No. 420 of 2020 under Sections 363, 366, 376 I.P.C. and 3/4 POCSO Act, Police Station Jalesar, District Etah, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of one year from the date of producing a certified copy of this order.
Order Date :- 13.3.2023 gp