# Deepak Chugh v. State of U.P. & Anr

- **Citation:** (2019) 2 ILRA 1046
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2019-09-24
- **Case number:** Crl Misc. Ist Anticipatory Bail Application No. 38121 of 2019
- **Bench:** Ram Krishna Gautam
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/deepak-chugh-v-state-of-u-p-anr-44552
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

A. Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections
323,
506,
498-A
and
354(a)
and
Protection
of
children
from
sexual
offence (POCSO) Act, 2012-Section7/8application-grant of anticipatory bailrejection- accusation of sexual assault
against father with his own girl, aged
about 13 years- Offence is very heinous-
Hence, bail is rejected.

B. In instant case, accused applicant is
the
father.

He
may
be
having
matrimonial dispute with his wife, but
the victim of this offence is minor girl of
13 years of age. The alleged offence is
committed by victim's own father, who is
her guardian, and under the lap of
whom, she is protected against all world,
but he has sexually assaulted her. (Para
4,5 & 6)

Ist Anticipatory Bail Application rejected
 (E-6)

## Text

1046 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
by a court at Sultanpur, accused persons
have been convicted. So at this juncture,
keeping in view all the facts and
circumstances of the case, I do not find it a
fit case any order pertaining to transfer of
above mentioned criminal case be passed
and therefore the prayer of the applicant
pertaining to the transfer of the criminal
case i.e. Sessions Trial No. 370 of 2015
(State Vs. Shesh Narayan), arising out of
case crime no. 2333 of 2008, under Sections
364/511, 504, 506 IPC relating to Police
Station Kotwali, District Sultanpur, pending
in the court of Additional Sessions Judge,
Court No.1, Sultanpur to any other court of
competent jurisdiction within State of U.P.,
is refused and thereby transfer petition is
dismissed.

15. However, so far as the
apprehension of the applicant with regard
to any incident which may be caused by
opposite party no.2 is concerned Senior
Superintendent of Police, Lucknow and
Superintendent of Police, Sultanpur are
directed to provide adequate security to
the applicant on such dates which have
been fixed for his evidence in Sessions
Trial No. 370 of 2015, arising out of case
crime no. 2333 of 2008, under Sections
364/511, 504, 506 IPC relating to Police
Station Kotwali, District Sultanpur.
----------

(2019)10ILR A 1046

ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 24.09.2019

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE RAM KRISHNA GAUTAM, J.

Crl Misc. Ist Anticipatory Bail Application
No. 38121 of 2019
Deepak Chugh ...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Applicant:
Sri Ajay Kumar Pandey, Sri Satish Trivedi.

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
A.G.A.

A. Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections
323,
506,
498-A
and
354(a)
and
Protection
of
children
from
sexual
offence (POCSO) Act, 2012-Section7/8application-grant of anticipatory bailrejection- accusation of sexual assault
against father with his own girl, aged
about 13 years- Offence is very heinous-
Hence, bail is rejected.

B. In instant case, accused applicant is
the
father.

He
may
be
having
matrimonial dispute with his wife, but
the victim of this offence is minor girl of
13 years of age. The alleged offence is
committed by victim's own father, who is
her guardian, and under the lap of
whom, she is protected against all world,
but he has sexually assaulted her. (Para
4,5 & 6)

Ist Anticipatory Bail Application rejected
 (E-6)

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

1. This application for grant of
anticipatory bail has been moved by
Deepak Chugh in Case Crime No. 250 of
2019, under Sections 323, 506, 498-A,
354(a) I.P.C. read with Section 7/8
POCSO Act, Police Station Govind
Nagar, District Kanpur Nagar.

2. Learned counsel for applicant
argued that there is a family dispute in
between accused and his wife, who were
married in year 2001. She went with her
2 All. Deepak Chugh Vs State of U.P. & Anr.
1047
kids to her parental house and she was with
her paramours, which was never complained
by accused to anyone because of family
prestige. On 28.06.2019, she along with her
siblings went to her parental house and even
after request on birthday of applicant on
29.06.2019, she did not turn up. On
04.07.2019 she sent some photographs over
whats app. On 09.07.2019 applicant was at
Mumbai regarding his business work and he
came back on 14.07.2019. He found obscene
messages with obscene selfie photos over
mobile phone of his wife. This was protested,
resulting abuse by her and she demanded Rs.3
crores in lieu of Talaq, otherwise to face dire
consequences. She again went to her parental
house. Those mobile numbers and name of
holders were reported to police by way of
application dated 05.08.2019. As a counter
blast, this false case for offence punishable
under under Sections 323, 506, 498-A, 354(a)
I.P.C. read with Section 7/8 POCSO Act has
been got registered on 19.08.2019 for alleged
occurrence of 05.07.2019, which was much
delayed and under concoction, owing to
above family dispute. The maximum sentence
for offence is five years and by putting
applicant in jail her entire prestige will go
away, for which his wife is adamant to snatch.
Hence, this anticipatory bail application was
moved before court of Sessions Judge,
Kanpur Nagar, but it was rejected by Special
Judge (POCSO Act) / Additional Sessions
Judge vide order dated 03.09.2019. Hence,
this application.

3. Learned A.G.A. has vehemently
opposed bail with this contention that
there is accusation of sexual assault
against father with his own girl, aged
about 13 years. Offence is very heinous.
Hence, bail be rejected.

4. Having heard learned counsel for
both sides and gone through
first
information report, it is apparent that this
case was got registered by way of
presenting an application before Senior
Superintendent of Police, whereby case
has been registered against applicant for
offence punishable under Sections 323,
506, 498-A, 354(a) I.P.C. read with
Section
7/8
POCSO
Act,
for
an
occurrence of 05.07.2019 and it was
registered
on
19.08.2019.
There
is
specific accusation of sexual assault by
accused applicant with her daughter
victim, aged about 13 years and when
protested complainant informant was
beaten and ousted from her house. She
went with her children. There is allegation
of persistent occurrence of such type of
offence, since last two years and this was
occurrence of 05.07.2019, at about 3
A.M., which was complained and this was
reported.
The
statement
of
victim
recorded under Sections 161 and 164
Cr.P.C. is fully intact. In application,
moved by accused applicant before Senior
Superintendent of Police, Kanpur Nagar,
the fact that victim is of 13 years was
admitted
by
accused
himself.
The
application by accused applicant was
moved
after
above
occurrence
of
05.07.2019, when this protest was there.

5. No doubt, offence punishable
under Section 7/8 POCSO Act is
punishable with five years of sentence,
but the legislation legislated this special
Act with a view to protect children from
offences
of
sexual
assault,
sexual
harassment and pornography and provide
for establishment of special courts for trial
of
such
offences
and
for
matters
connected therewith or incidental thereto.
This Act was legislated in furtherance of
Article 15 of the Constitution, which,
inter alia, confers upon the State powers
to make special provisions for children.
1048 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Article 39 provides that the State shall in
particular directive policy towards securing
that the tender age of children are not abused
and their childhood and youth are protected
against exploitation and they are given
facilities to develop in a healthy manner and
in conditions of freedom and dignity. This
was in furtherance of treaty and covenant
adopted
under
the
United
Nations
Convention on the Rights of Children, which
are ratified by India on 11th December, 1992
and data collected by the National Crime
Records Bureau shows that there has been
increase in cases of sexual offences against
children. This is corroborated by the "Study
on Child Abuse: India 2007" conducted by
the
Ministry
of
Women
and
Child
Development. Moreover, sexual offences
against children are not adequately addressed
by the existing laws. A large number of such
offences are neither specifically provided for
nor are they adequately penalised. The
interests of the child, both as a victim as well
as a witness, need to be protected. Hence, it
was felt for such legislation.

6. In present case, accused applicant
is the father. He may be having
matrimonial dispute with his wife, but the
victim of this offence is minor girl of 13
years of age. The alleged offence is
committed by victim's own father, who is
her guardian, and under the lap of whom,
she is protected against all world, but he
has sexually assaulted her. It does not
require any indulgence by this Court.

7. The anticipatory bail application
is accordingly rejected.
----------

(2019)10ILR A 1048

REVISIONAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED ALLAHABAD 25.01.2019
BEFORE

THE HON'BLE ANJANI KUMAR MISHRA, J.

Civil Revision No. 2 of 2004

M/s Kanoria Chemicals and Industries
Ltd. ...Plaintiff/Revisionist/Applicant
Versus
M/s Global Drugs (P) Ltd.
 ...Defendant/Opposite Party

Counsel for the Revisionist:
Sri Surendra Tiwari

Counsel for the Opposite Party:
--------

A. Returning the plaint on the ground
that no cause of action arose - breach of
a contract for supply of aluminium
chloride - payment for supply has not
been made - The plaintiff needs to prove
the contract - the place from where the
aluminium chloride was dispatched to
the defendant is not relevant - The place
from where the goods were supplied
therefore is not a fact which is within the
bundle of facts comprising the cause of
action of the suit itself.

B. Cause of action are those bundle of facts
which need to be traversed in the suit before
any relief can be granted to the plaintiff. Any
fact which is not relevant for deciding the
suit does not constitute the cause of action.
In the case at hand all that is required to be
established is that goods under the purchase
order, placed by the defendant, were
supplied but not paid for. The place from
where the goods were supplied is not
material and for the same reason it is not a
relevant fact, constituting the cause of
action. (Para 7,8,15,16,17,18,21,22 & 23)

Civil Revision dismissed (E-6)

Precedent followed: -

1. Laxman Prasad Vs Prodigy Electronics Ltd.
&
anr.
(2008)
1
SCC
618