SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Pankaj Shukla vs State Of U.P. on 18 July, 2019


?Court No. – 14

Case :- BAIL No. – 9288 of 2018

Applicant :- Pankaj Shukla

Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.

Counsel for Applicant :- Rajendra Kumar Dwivedi,Devika Singh,Harish Pandey,Suyash Bajpai

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

Hon’ble Anant Kumar,J.

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

The present bail application has been filed by the applicant in Case Crime No. 478 of 2018, under Sections 377 I.P.C. and Section 5 (Jha)/6 of the POCSO Act, 2012, Police Station Purwa, District Unnao.

As per version of F.I.R. on 02.05.2018 it was revealed to the complainant by his wife that present applicant had done unnatural offence with the son of complainant aged about 8 years. This was revealed by the victim to his mother. Then this F.I.R. was lodged. Then victim was sent for medical examination and corresponding injury was found. The doctor has noted a contusion 0.5 C.M. X 0.3 C.M. present at Analrifice at 10 O’ clock position colour reddish. When the statement of the victim was recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and 164 SectionCr.P.C. he has supported the prosecution version and stated that on the date of occurrence he had gone to the house of the applicant who was living in first floor of the same house. He has stated that when he was there in the house of applicant, then he raised volume of T.V. and put off his garments and had done unnatural offence due to which he suffered great pain.

Learned counsel for the applicant states that applicant has been falsely implicated in the case as the applicant was a tenant in the same house of the complainant because the complainant was pressurizing to vacate the house. Opposing the bail learned A.G.A. has submitted that it is not a false case because the statement of the victim and corresponding injuries support the prosecution version. Victim is aged about 8 years. There is no reason for giving false statement. Corresponding injuries are there.

Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find it to be a fit case for granting bail. Accordingly, the bail application is hereby rejected.

However, the trial court is directed to complete the trial proceedings expeditiously preferably within a period of six months without granting any unnecessary adjournment to any of the parties.

Order Date :- 18.7.2019




Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Copyright © 2021 SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Free Legal Help, Just WhatsApp Away

MyNation HELP line

We are Not Lawyers, but No Lawyer will give you Advice like We do

Please read Group Rules – CLICK HERE, If You agree then Please Register CLICK HERE and after registration  JOIN WELCOME GROUP HERE

We handle Women Centric biased laws like False Sectioin 498A IPC, Domestic Violence(DV ACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA 24, 125 CrPc, 307, 312, 313, 323, 354, 376, 377, 406, 420, 497, 506, 509; TEP, RTI and many more…

MyNation FoundationMyNation FoundationMyNation Foundation