# Nazir v. State Of U.P - **Citation:** (2016) 7 ILRA 17 - **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad - **Decided:** 2016-07-26 - **Bench:** Karuna Nand Bajpayee - **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/nazir-v-state-of-u-p-44001 - **Pages:** 4 ## Text 7 All. Nazir Vs State Of U.P. 17 detention already undergone, the unlikelihood of early conclusion of trial and also the absence of any convincing material to indicate the possibility of tampering with the evidence, this Court is of the view that the applicant may be enlarged on bail. 7. Let the applicant- Chanara @ Chandrawati, involved in Case Crime No. 216 of 2015, u/s 306 I.P.C., P.S.- Barasathi, District- Jaunpur, be released on bail on her executing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned on the following conditions :- (1) The applicant will not make any attempt to tamper with the prosecution evidence in any manner whatsoever. (2) The applicant will personally appear on each and every date in the court and her personal presence shall not be exempted unless the court itself deems it fit to do so in the interest of justice. 8. It may be observed that in the event of any breach of the aforesaid conditions, the court below shall be at liberty to proceed for the cancellation of applicant's bail. 9. It is clarified that the observations, if any, made in this order are strictly confined to the disposal of the bail application and must not be construed to have any reflection on the ultimate merits of the case. ----------- ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CRIMINAL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD 26.07.2016 BEFORE THE HON'BLE KARUNA NAND BAJPAYEE, J. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.- 29435 Of 2015 Nazir ...Applicant Versus State Of U.P. ...Opposite Party Counsel for Applicant: Ravi Prakash Singh Counsel for Opposite Party: Govt. Advocate Held 18 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES The applicant Nazir is entitled to be released on bail in Case Crime No. 91 of 2015 (S.T. No. 44 of 2015) under . Sections 452/376 IPC and Sections 3/4 POCSO Act, P.S. Bachhrayun, District Amroha/J.P. Nagar. The Court granted bail after considering the following factors: Medical examination assessed the victim's age as 19-20 years, indicating majority. No external injuries found on the victim's body. No fresh injury to hymen; hymen found old torn and healed. Medical evidence does not support allegation of force or violence. Alleged delay in lodging FIR (incident dated 02.02.2015; FIR lodged on 04.05.2015). Love letters (Annexure SA-1) suggesting consensual relationship. Applicant in custody since 06.05.2015 (more than one year). No likelihood of early conclusion of trial. No convincing material indicating possibility of tampering with evidence. Bail granted subject to conditions: No tampering with prosecution evidence. Personal appearance on each date unless exempted by the trial court. Bail liable to cancellation upon breach of conditions. Observations made are limited strictly to the bail stage and shall not influence the merits of the trial. CASE LAW CITED None (Delivered by Hon'ble Karuna Nand Bajpayee, J.) 1. Counter affidavit on behalf of the State filed today is taken on record. 2. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. 3. Perused the record. 4. Submission of the counsel for the applicant is that according to the medical examination, the age of the girl was found between 19 to 20 years and actually she is fully grown up major girl. Further submission is that actually the applicant was carrying a love affair with the victim girl and in that connection the victim used to write love letters to him also. Counsel has drawn the attention of the Court to the love letters annexed as annexure no. SA-1 along with the supplementary affidavit indicating the cordial loving relationship between the two and in which the boy and the girl displayed their infatuation towards each other. It was also submitted that the incident is said to have taken place on 2.2.2015 in the midnight while the F.I.R. of the case was lodged on 4.5.2015 by the mother of the victim. Submission is that actually when the mother of the victim came to know about their relationship, she lodged the F.I.R. as she did not agree with the same. Counsel has drawn the attention of the Court to medical examination of the girl which does not indicate any kind of violence or any kind of injury on the private part or any other part of her body. The medical examination also does not indicate any fresh injury on hymen of the victim. To the contrary, the hymen was found old torn and healed. Further submission is that the absence of any corroboration from the medical evidence and the delayed reporting of the matter coupled with the exchange of 7 All. Nazir Vs State Of U.P. 19 love letters are the circumstances enough to indicate that at the most, it is a case of consensual sex. It was also submitted that the family of the applicant and the family of the uncle of the victim were having civil litigations and the uncle of the victim, who is having inimical relationship with the applicant and his family, has added fuel to the fire and has got the first information report lodged against the applicant through the victim's mother. Contention is that the victim has given adverse statement against the applicant under the pressure of her mother and uncle. Much emphasis was laid by the counsel on the period of detention and it has been pointed out that the applicant has spent more than a year in jail and he is languishing behind the bars since 6.5.2015 and that in the wake of heavy pendency of cases in the Court, there is no likelihood of any early conclusion of trial. Several other submissions in order to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against the applicant have also been placed forth before the Court. The circumstances which, according to the counsel, led to the false implication of the accused have also been touched upon at length. It has been assured on behalf of the applicant that he is ready to cooperate with the process of law and shall faithfully make himself available before the court whenever required. 5. Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail. 6. After perusing the record in the light of the submissions made at the bar and after taking an overall view of all the facts and circumstances of this case, the nature of evidence, the period of detention already undergone, the unlikelihood of early conclusion of trial and also the absence of any convincing material to indicate the possibility of tampering with the evidence, this Court is of the view that the applicant may be enlarged on bail. 7. Let the applicant- Nazir, involved in Case Crime No. 91 of 2015, S.T. No. 44 of 2015, u/s 452/376 I.P.C. and under Sections 3/4 POCSO Act, P.S.- Bachhrayun, District- Amroha/J.P. Nagar, be released on bail on his executing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned on the following conditions :- (1) The applicant will not make any attempt to tamper with the prosecution evidence in any manner whatsoever. (2) The applicant will personally appear on each and every date in the court and his personal presence shall not be exempted unless the court itself deems it fit to do so in the interest of justice. 8. It may be observed that in the event of any breach of the aforesaid conditions, the court below shall be at liberty to proceed for the cancellation of applicant's bail. 9. It is clarified that the observations, if any, made in this order are strictly confined to the disposal of the bail application and must not be construed to have any reflection on the ultimate merits of the case. ----------- 20 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD 26.07.2016 BEFORE THE HON'BLE PRABHAT CHANDRA TRIPATHI, J. Criminal Revision No.- 2256 Of 2013 Mohit Mishra ...Appellant Versus State Of U.P. & Anr. ...Respondents Counsel for Appellant: Dinesh Kumar Counsel for Respondents: Govt. Advocate, T.K. Mishra Held The revision challenging the order dated 12.07.2013 passed by the Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Gautam Budh Nagar rejecting the plea of juvenility of Mohit Mishra is dismissed. The Court held that: The revisionist failed to produce matriculation certificate, birth certificate from the first attended school, or birth certificate issued by municipal authority/panchayat as required under Rule 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007. The school leaving certificates relied upon by the revisionist are not sufficient or relevant for determining juvenility under Rule 12. The medical age certificate dated 27.02.2013 issued by the Chief Medical Officer, Gautam Budh Nagar clearly opined that the revisionist was above 19 years of age. In absence of statutory documentary proof of age, medical opinion becomes relevant and determinative. No illegality, perversity, or infirmity was found in the order of the Juvenile Justice Board. Consequently, the plea that the revisionist was 16 years and 5 months old on the date of incident (15.12.2012) was rejected. The revision being without merit was dismissed and interim order, if any, was vacated. CASE LAW CITED Mohd. Azad Alam Vs. State of U.P., 2010 (1) JIC 303 (All) Section 7-A of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 Rule 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007 (Delivered by Hon'ble Prabhat Chandra Tripathi, J.)