Read Time: 05 minutes
The accused priest claimed that he had been falsely implicated in the case due to a village enmity
In a significant order, the Allahabad High Court recently denied bail to a temple priest accused of sexually assaulting a minor boy in Amroha district. While passing the order, court emphasized the gravity of the offense which allegedly occurred on February 9, 2024.
According to the First Information Report (FIR), an about 12-year-old boy was sexually assaulted by Jamna Giri, a priest after being taken near a temple during a local fair. The victim, who had lost his parents and was living with his uncle (the informant), was found crying by the informant after the incident. Upon questioning, the boy disclosed that Giri had forced him into unnatural sex.
Giri, through his counsel Arun Kumar, challenged the allegations, claiming that he had been falsely implicated due to a village enmity. The counsel argued that the informant sought to remove Giri from his position as the priest of the Bahadurpur Mishra Temple, and the FIR was part of a vendetta. He also highlighted that the medical report did not conclusively support the charges under Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), pointing out the absence of external injuries.
The prosecution, represented by the Additional Government Advocate (AGA), vehemently opposed the bail. The AGA asserted that the victim’s statement recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) corroborated the FIR and left no room for doubt about the gravity of the offence. The court was informed that Giri had been in custody since February 10, 2024.
The bench of Rohit Ranjan Agarwal underscored the seriousness of the allegations, noting that the victim, a minor, had consistently maintained his account of the events in multiple statements. The court expressed concern over the nature of the crime, stating that it had "shaken the conscience" of the court, and observed that there was no reason for the minor to fabricate such a serious accusation against Giri.
Considering the evidence presented and the gravity of the offence, court concluded that no case for bail had been made out at this stage.
Consequently, the bail application of Jamna Giri, who is facing charges under Section 377 IPC and Sections 3/4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, was rejected.
Case Title: Jamna Giri v. State Of U.P. And 3 Others
Please Login or Register
