Take notes as you read a judgment using our Virtual Legal Assistant and get email alerts whenever a new judgment matches your query (Query Alert Service). Try out our Premium Member services — Free for one month.
Allahabad High Court
Sanoop vs State Of U.P. And Another on 2 April, 2024
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. – 2024:AHC:55805
Court No. – 73
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. – 7709 of 2024
Applicant :- Sanoop
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Vikas Yadav,Vishveshwar Mani Tripathi
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon’ble Sameer Jain,J.
1. Sri Imran Khan, learned AGA for the State apprised the Court that notice has been served upon the informant on 28.02.2024. Despite service of notice, none present on behalf of the informant.
2. Heard Sri Vishveshwar Mani Tripathi, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Imran Khan, learned AGA for the State.
3. The instant bail application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 412 of 2023, under Sections 377 IPC and Section 5M/6 POCSO Act, Police Station Badhalganj, District Gorakhpur during pendency of the trial.
4. FIR of the present case was lodged on 16.06.2023 against applicant and according to the FIR applicant committed sodomy against the son of the informant aged about six years.
5. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that on the basis of false allegation due to previous enmity, applicant has been made accused in the present matter.
6. He further submits that applicant is a Guard in Mango orchard and actually victim along with other boys tried to pluck the Mangoes and when applicant resisted then victim while running fell down and sustained injuries.
7. He further submits that during initial medical examination dated 19.06.2023 doctor noted complain of pain in annul area and also noted tear in upper part of anus but when victim was referred for further medical examination then as per report of the victim dated 30.06.2023 no injury was found and even anus was found normal.
8. He further submits that applicant is not having any criminal history and in the present matter he is in jail since 17.06.2023.
9. Per contra, learned AGA opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that allegation against the applicant is quite serious and medical report of the victim fully corroborates the allegation leveled against the applicant.
10. He further submits that victim is six years old boy and he categorically stated in his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. against the applicant. He next submits that defence taken by the applicant apparently appears to be false, therefore, applicant should not be released on bail.
11. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case.
12. There is serious allegation against the applicant that he committed unnatural sex with a boy aged about six years and victim in his both the statements recorded under Sections 161 Cr.P.C. and 164 Cr.P.C. stated against the applicant and in the statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.PC. he categorically stated that when applicant committed sodomy then blood was also oozing from his anus.
13. Further, even from the medical report of the victim, it appears that doctor noted presence of blood around anus and according to the doctor there was also tear on the upper part of his anus, however, it appears that when on reference on 30.06.2023 medical was conducted then doctor could not find any injury but as his further examination was conducted after 11 days of the incident, therefore, possibility cannot be ruled out that after 11 days the wound would have been healed.
14. Further, applicant has taken a specific defence in paragraph-13 of the affidavit that he is guard in Mango orchard and when victim and other boys tried to pluck the Mangoes then he resisted and thereafter while victim was running he sustained injuries. The defence taken by the applicant appears to be ridiculous and false and it is not possible that victim sustained injuries in his anus by falling.
15. Further, however, applicant in the present matter is in jail since 17.06.2023 i.e. for last more than nine months but punishment provided for the offences under Section 377 IPC can be extended up to life imprisonment.
16. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case discussed above, in my view, applicant is not entitled to be released on bail at this stage.
17. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the instant bail application is rejected at this stage.
18. It is clarified that the observations made herein are limited to the facts brought in by the parties pertaining to the disposal of bail application and the said observations shall have no bearing on the merits of the case during trial.
Order Date :- 2.4.2024
AK Pandey
