Rules of the Game Were Never Changed: Delhi High Court Upholds CSIR’s Power to Prescribe Minimum Threshold in CASE-2023 Resignation Does Not Forfeit Earned Pension: Calcutta High Court Declares Company Superannuation Benefit as ‘Wages’ Under Law Fraud Vitiates Everything—Stranger Can File Independent Suit Against Compromise Decree: Bombay High Court Refuses to Reject 49-Year-Old Challenge at Threshold Article 21-A Cannot Be Held Hostage to Transfer Preferences: Allahabad High Court Upholds Teacher Redeployment to Enforce Pupil–Teacher Ratio Arbitrator Cannot Rewrite Contract Or Travel Beyond Pleadings: Punjab & Haryana High Court Quashes ₹5.18 Crore Award Director’ in GeM Clause 29 Does Not Mean ‘Independent Director’: Gujarat High Court Sets Aside Technical Disqualification Section 25(3) Is Sacrosanct – Removal of a Trademark Cannot Rest on a Defective Notice: Delhi High Court Not Every Broken Promise Is Rape: Delhi High Court Draws Clear Line Between ‘Suspicion’ and ‘Grave Suspicion’ in False Promise to Marry Case Section 37 Is Not A Second Appeal On Merits: Delhi High Court Refuses To Re-Appreciate Evidence In Challenge To Arbitral Award Recovery After Retirement Is Clearly Impermissible: Bombay High Court Shields Retired Teacher From ₹2.80 Lakh Salary Recovery Paying Tax Does Not Legalise Illegality: Bombay High Court Refuses to Shield Alleged Unauthorized Structure Beneficial Pension Scheme Cannot Be Defeated By Cut-Off Dates: Andhra Pradesh High Court Directs EPFO To Follow Sunil Kumar B. Guidelines On Higher Pension Claims Equity Aids the Vigilant, Not Those Who Sleep Over Their Rights: Punjab & Haryana High Court Refuses to Revive 36-Year-Old Pay Parity Claim Students Cannot Be Penalised For Legislative Invalidity: Supreme Court Protects Degrees Granted Before 2005 Yash Pal Verdict Restructuring Without Fulfilment of Conditions Cannot Defeat Insolvency: Supreme Court Reaffirms Default as the Sole Trigger Under Section 7 IBC

ALLHABAD HIGH COURT REJECTS BAIL APPLICATION IN HEINOUS CHILD RAPE POSCO CASE

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant ruling, the Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Singh, J., dismissed a bail application in a shocking child rape case. The case involved charges under Sections 376AB of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Section 5m/6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act.

The applicant, identified as Rajesh, had sought bail during the ongoing trial. The allegations were made by the victim's mother, who lodged a First Information Report (FIR) against Rajesh, accusing him of raping her 7-year-old daughter. The incident allegedly took place in a mustard field on January 14, 2022.

The defense counsel vehemently argued that Rajesh was falsely implicated, highlighting the lack of medical evidence to support the prosecution's claims. They emphasized that the victim's medical examination revealed an intact hymen and no physical injuries. Referring to medical jurisprudence, the defense asserted that complete penetration or hymen rupture was not necessary to constitute rape.

However, the Additional Government Advocate representing the State opposed the bail application, stressing the gravity of the offense and the young age of the victim. The victim's statements, both under Section 161 and 164 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.), included explicit allegations of rape against Rajesh.

Considering the overall facts, the severity of the charges, and the role assigned to the applicant, the court found no justifiable grounds to grant bail. Citing previous judgments, the court highlighted the reliability of the victim's testimony and the need to deal sternly with sexual crimes against women and children.

The chargesheet filed under Section 376AB of the IPC carries a minimum sentence of 20 years. Additionally, the court noted that the presumption under Section 29 of the POCSO Act would be drawn against the accused.

D.D-10 May.2023

Rajesh vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others

Latest Legal News