# Brajesh Bind @ Brajesh Kumar Bind v. State of U.P. & Anr. Opp. Parties

- **Citation:** (2021) 1 ILRA 492
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2021-01-12
- **Case number:** Crl. Misc. Bail Appl. No. 20126 of 2020
- **Bench:** Ram Krishna Gautam
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/brajesh-bind-brajesh-kumar-bind-v-state-of-u-p-anr-opp-parties-46776
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

A. Criminal Law - Indian Penal Code, 1860
- Sections 363,366,376 & Prevention of
Children from sexual offences(POCSO)
Act,
2012-Section
5/6-applicationrejection-prosecutrix age was 17 year
according to medical report-However, in
her statement u/s 164 Cr.P.C.she said to
have gone and married with the applicantstatement made by the prosecutrix, under
her minorship having no legal sanctity-
applicant is a next door neighbourapplicant
is
already
married
manapplicant's wife herself apprised about the
enticing and taking of minor by the
applicant-the aim and object of the Act,
2012 is to protect minor children from
sexual
assault-applicant
committed
offence of heinous nature and is every
likelihood of tampering with evidenceHence, no ground for bail.(Para 1 to 6)

The bail application is rejected. (E-5)

List of Cases Cited:

Smt. Ramsati@ Shyamsati thru her husband Vs
St. of U.P. thru Principal Secy. Home Deptt.
Lucknow & ors.(W.P. No. 247 of 2015)

## Text

492 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
applicant even after seven long years, the
charges levelled against the applicant at
this stage, at best, are merely charges
without any prima facie evidence being
produced by the CBI It is also relevant that
apprehension
against
applicant
of
influencing witnesses and tampering with
evidence is also not borne out by any
evidence on record. Even with regard to
such apprehensions, Hon'ble the Supreme
Court
in
Ankita
Kailash
Khandelwal(supra) has already held that
adequate safeguards can be put in place
while granting bail to an undertrial. As has
been held in Sanjay Chandra(supra), we
cannot lose sight of the fact that the
investigating agency has already completed
investigation and charge sheet has already
been filed before the trial court, therefore
presence of accused in custody may not be
necessary for further investigation. It is also
not the case of CBI that the applicant is
required to be in custody for any other
investigational purposes.

31. In view of aforesaid, this Court is
of the considered opinion that the applicant
is liable to be enlarged on bail pending
trial.

32. Accordingly the third bail
application is allowed.

33. Let applicant Rajiv Pratap Singh
(Raju Singh), involved in the aforesaid case
crime be released on bail on his furnishing
a personal bond and two sureties each in
the like amount to the satisfaction of the
court concerned subject to the following
conditions:-

(a) The applicant shall not directly or
indirectly make any inducement, threat or
promise to any person acquainted with the
facts of the case so as to dissuade him to
disclose such facts to the Court or to any
other authority.

(b) He shall remain present before the
court on the dates fixed for hearing of the
case. If he wants to remain absent, then he
shall take prior permission of the court and
in case of unavoidable circumstances for
remaining absent, he shall immediately
give intimation to the appropriate court and
also to the Superintendent, CBI and request
that he may be permitted to be present
through the counsel.

(c) He shall surrender his passport, if
any (if not already surrendered), and in
case, he is not a holder of the same, he shall
swear to an affidavit of the said fact, to be
produced before the trial court. If he has
already surrendered it before the learned
Special Judge, CBI, that fact should also be
supported by an affidavit.

(d) It will be open to CBI to make an
appropriate
application
for
modification/recalling the order passed by
this Court, if for any reason, the applicant
violates any of the conditions imposed by
this Court.
----------
(2021)01ILR A492
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 12.01.2021

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE RAM KRISHNA GAUTAM, J.

Crl. Misc. Bail Appl. No. 20126 of 2020

Brajesh Bind @ Brajesh Kumar Bind
 ...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opp. Parties

Counsel for the Applicant:
Sri Ganga Prasad Gupta

Counsel for the Opp. Parties:
1 All. Brajesh Bind @ Brajesh Kumar Bind Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
493
G.A., Sri Ram Shiromani Yadav

A. Criminal Law - Indian Penal Code, 1860
- Sections 363,366,376 & Prevention of
Children from sexual offences(POCSO)
Act,
2012-Section
5/6-applicationrejection-prosecutrix age was 17 year
according to medical report-However, in
her statement u/s 164 Cr.P.C.she said to
have gone and married with the applicantstatement made by the prosecutrix, under
her minorship having no legal sanctity-
applicant is a next door neighbourapplicant
is
already
married
manapplicant's wife herself apprised about the
enticing and taking of minor by the
applicant-the aim and object of the Act,
2012 is to protect minor children from
sexual
assault-applicant
committed
offence of heinous nature and is every
likelihood of tampering with evidenceHence, no ground for bail.(Para 1 to 6)

The bail application is rejected. (E-5)

List of Cases Cited:

Smt. Ramsati@ Shyamsati thru her husband Vs
St. of U.P. thru Principal Secy. Home Deptt.
Lucknow & ors.(W.P. No. 247 of 2015)

(Delivered by Hon'ble Ram Krishna
Gautam, J.)

1. Heard learned counsel for the
applicant and learned counsel for informant
as well as learned A.G.A. and perused the
record.

2. By means of this application, the
accused-applicant, Brajesh Bind @ Brajesh
Kumar Bind, who is said to be involved in
Case Crime No. 781 of 2017, under Sections
363, 366 and 376 of I.P.C., read with Section
5/6 of Protection of Children From Sexual
Offences Act, 2012 (Hereinafter in short
referred to as the 'POCSO Act'), Police
Station-
Mungra
Badshahpur,
District-
Jaunpur, is seeking enlargement on bail.

3. Learned counsel for accused-applicant
argued that the accused-applicant is innocent;
he has been falsely implicated in this very case
crime number and is languishing in Jail since
13.5.2020; accused-applicant is of no criminal
antecedent; there is no likelihood of fleeing
from course of justice or tampering with
evidence in case of release on bail; prosecutorix
was major; she, in her statement, recorded,
under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C., has
categorically said to have gone with the
applicant and married with the applicant; she is
having kids; Writ Petition No.6996 of 2019,
Brijesh Bind and another vs. State of U.P. and 3
others, was filed before this Court, wherein,
vide order, dated 14.3.2019, a protection was
granted; age of the prosecutorix has been held
to be of 17 years, in the medical age
determination test and there is no accusation
against the applicant, rather, an admission of
marriage with the applicant and voluntarily
going with the applicant is there, and as such, in
view of the law laid down by this Court in the
case of Smt. Ramsati @ Shyamsati through
her husband vs. State of U.P. through
Principal Secretary Home Department,
Lucknow and others in Writ Petition No.247
of 2015, dated 7.9.2015, no offence, under
Section 363 or 366 is made out because even a
minor is a competent guardian for looking after
welfare of his minor wife and in the present
case, prosecutorix is wedded wife of the
applicant, hence, applicant is entitled for bail.

4. Learned A.G.A. as well as learned
counsel for informant have vehemently
opposed the prayer for bail with this
contention
that
occurrence
was
of
13.9.2017,
whereas,
medical
age
determination test was of the year 2019,
wherein the Medical Board has determined
the age of the prosecutorix of 17 years, i.e.,
on the date of the occurrence, the
prosecutorix was minor, that too, of 15
years of age, which was mentioned in the
494 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
first information report of about 16 years
and a statement, with respect to consent or
consensual relationship, made by the
prosecutorix is, under her minorship,
having no legal sanctity. Prosecutorix was
enticed, abducted and taken by the
applicant, who was next door neighbour
and was also married one. It was mentioned
in the first information report, itself, that
the wife of the applicant herself apprised
about this enticing and taking of minor by
the applicant. Life of the prosecutorix as
well as wife of the applicant has been put
under hell by the applicant, who is saying
to be in consensual living and marriage
with the prosecutorix, but, this marriage or
separation may be having no legal sanctity
because the applicant was already a
married man having his wife alive, with no
judicial separation of any competent court.
The aim and object of the Legislation of
Protection
of
Children
From
Sexual
Offences Act, 2012, is to protect minor
children from sexual assault and in present
case, it was a sexual assault, made by the
applicant with a minor girl of 15 years, who
is next door neighbour of the prosectuorix
and has committed offence of this heinous
nature and there is every likelihood of
tampering with evidence, in case of release
on bail, hence, Bail Application deserves to
be rejected..

5. Having heard learned counsel for
both sides and gone through materials on
record, it is apparent that in the medical age
determination test, prosecutorix was held to
be 17 years of age in the year 2019,
whereas, the offence is of the year 2017,
thus, at the relevant time, she was of 15
years of age, and as such considering aim
and object of the Legislation of Protection
of Children From Sexual Offences Act,
2012, to protect minor children from sexual
assault, heinousness of offence of rape with
a minor, likelihood of tampering with
evidence, in case of being released on bail,
but, without expressing any opinion on
merit of the case, there appears to be no
ground for bail.

6. Accordingly, in view of what has
been discussed above, Bail Application
stands rejected.
----------
(2021)01ILR A494
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 01.12.2020

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE RAHUL CHATURVEDI, J.

Crl. Misc. Bail Appl. No. 39888 of 2020

Arvind ...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. ...Opp. Party

Counsel for the Applicant:
Sri Amit Daga

Counsel for the Opp. Party:
A.G.A.

A. Criminal Law - Indian Penal Code,1860
-
Sections
304-B,
498-A
&
Dowry
Prohibition
Act,1961-Section
3⁄4application-grant of bail-the entire family
has been roped in, unmindful of the fact of
interse
relationship
by
attributing
a
general and omnibus role to everybodyyoung lady interested to open beauty
parlour for additional income-she was
carrying the 5-6 months pregnancy-she
thought her dreams were shattered-she
has hanged herself-no external injury
found in the medical except foetus of a
male-no
evidence
collected
during
investigation that husband abetted her or
conspired or intentionally aided her.(Para
1 to 26)

The bail application is allowed. (E-5)