The counsel for the applicants has submitted that the offences under Sections 354, 506 IPC, under Section 3/6 of the Indecent Representation of Women (Prohibition) Act and under Sections 66E, 67 of the Information Technology Act are bailable. So far as the offence under Section 8/12 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act concerned, in that is at regard the contention of the learned counsel for the applicants is that this offence is made out only in the case in which the victim is less than 18 years of age as per Section 1(d) of the said Act but in this case the prosecution has not proved that the age of the said victim girl was below 18 years because to ascertain her age no medical examination under Section 27 of the said Act was got conducted and according to Parivar Register, she was born in the year 1986, according to which her age comes to around about 26 years, so in that view of the matter, the offence under Section 8/12 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act is not made out and that the accused applicant is in jail since 22.8.2012, so they should be enlarged on bail. 1
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 28619 of 2012
Petitioner :- Sanjeev Kumar @ Ankur And Another
Respondent :- State Of U.P.
Sri S.S. Rajput, Advocate has filed his Parcha on behalf of the complainant. The same may be taken on record.
The present bail application has been moved on behalf of the accused-applicants for enlarging them on bail in Case Crime No. 237/2012, under Sections 354, 506 IPC, 66E, 67 Information Technology Act, 3/6 The Indecent Representation of Women (Prohibition) Act, Section 8/12 The Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, P.S. Pisava, District Aligarh.
Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned A.G.A. for the State, learned counsel for the complainant Sri S.S. Rajput and perused the record.
The counsel for the applicants has submitted that the offences under Sections 354, 506 IPC, under Section 3/6 of the Indecent Representation of Women (Prohibition) Act and under Sections 66E, 67 of the Information Technology Act are bailable. So far as the offence under Section 8/12 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act is concerned, in that regard the contention of the learned counsel for the applicants is that this offence is made out only in the case in which the victim is less than 18 years of age as per Section 1(d)� of the said Act but in this case the prosecution has not proved that the age of the said victim girl was below 18 years because to ascertain her age no medical examination under Section 27 of the said Act was got conducted and according to Parivar Register, she was born in the year 1986, according to which her age comes to around about 26 years, so in that view of the matter, the offence under Section 8/12 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act is not made out and that the accused applicant is in jail since 22.8.2012, so they should be enlarged on bail.
Learned A.G.A. and learned counsel for the complainant have opposed the prayer for bail.
Considering all the facts and circumstances of the matter, I find it proper to enlarge the accused applicants on bail.
The bail application is accordingly allowed.
Let the accused applicants, namely, Sanjeev Kumar @ Ankur and Sunil Kumar @ Bintu involved in the above case crime number be released on bail on their furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned.
Order Date :- 12.12.2012/SP
Print Page
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 28619 of 2012
Petitioner :- Sanjeev Kumar @ Ankur And Another
Respondent :- State Of U.P.
Sri S.S. Rajput, Advocate has filed his Parcha on behalf of the complainant. The same may be taken on record.
The present bail application has been moved on behalf of the accused-applicants for enlarging them on bail in Case Crime No. 237/2012, under Sections 354, 506 IPC, 66E, 67 Information Technology Act, 3/6 The Indecent Representation of Women (Prohibition) Act, Section 8/12 The Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, P.S. Pisava, District Aligarh.
Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned A.G.A. for the State, learned counsel for the complainant Sri S.S. Rajput and perused the record.
The counsel for the applicants has submitted that the offences under Sections 354, 506 IPC, under Section 3/6 of the Indecent Representation of Women (Prohibition) Act and under Sections 66E, 67 of the Information Technology Act are bailable. So far as the offence under Section 8/12 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act is concerned, in that regard the contention of the learned counsel for the applicants is that this offence is made out only in the case in which the victim is less than 18 years of age as per Section 1(d)� of the said Act but in this case the prosecution has not proved that the age of the said victim girl was below 18 years because to ascertain her age no medical examination under Section 27 of the said Act was got conducted and according to Parivar Register, she was born in the year 1986, according to which her age comes to around about 26 years, so in that view of the matter, the offence under Section 8/12 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act is not made out and that the accused applicant is in jail since 22.8.2012, so they should be enlarged on bail.
Learned A.G.A. and learned counsel for the complainant have opposed the prayer for bail.
Considering all the facts and circumstances of the matter, I find it proper to enlarge the accused applicants on bail.
The bail application is accordingly allowed.
Let the accused applicants, namely, Sanjeev Kumar @ Ankur and Sunil Kumar @ Bintu involved in the above case crime number be released on bail on their furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned.
Order Date :- 12.12.2012/SP
No comments:
Post a Comment