Allowed

Anish @Olanga v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC11 Oct 2018BAIL/25598/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court granted bail to the applicant, a 12th-standard student accused ofenticing away the daughter of a complainant under IPC and POCSO sections. The court held the applicant innocent based on evidence showing the girl married another person voluntarily, with an order for trial expedition.

What did the court decide?

Release of the applicant on bail with a personal bond and two sureties of like amounts, subject to specific conditions.

Anish @Olanga Vs State of U.P. — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 55

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 25598 of 2018

¶3

Applicant :- Anish @Olanga Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Mohd. Israr,Shashi Ranjan Srivastava,Subhash Chand Kanaujia Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Vivek Kumar Singh,J.

¶5

Supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of the applicant is taken on record.

¶6

An affidavit of compliance has also been filed by the State which is also taken on record.

¶7

Heard Sri S.R.Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Sanjay Singh, learned AGA appearing for the State.

¶8

According to the prosecution version the complainant lodged FIR against the applicant alleging that his daughter aged about 17 years alongwith the applicant had gone to appear in the examination, but she did not return back. It is further alleged that she was enticed away by the accused-applicant.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicant in support of his prayer for bail submits that the applicant is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in the present case due to old enmity and election rivalry and he has committed no offence. It is next contended that the applicant is a student of 12th standard and on the date of alleged incident he had appeared in his on going examination and he had not enticed away the victim. It is further contended that the victim was missing since 6.2.2018 whereas the FIR was lodged on19.2.2018 against the applicant on the basis of suspicion only. There is some old enmity between the parties with regard to the election of village Pradhan and as such the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. From perusal of the statement of the victim recorded under section 164 Cr.P.C. annexed as annexure-1 to the supplementary affidavit it is crystal clear that she had gone in the company of one Kiranjeet Rathore out of her own volition and she had married with him. She had fallen in love with Kiranjeet Rahore and both are living as husband and wife. The victim has also been recovered.The applicant has not role to play in the present case..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

¶10

implication of the accused has 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. It has also been submitted that the applicant is languishing in jail since 20.2.2018. The applicant has no other reported criminal antecedent.

¶11

Learned AGA has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail.

¶12

Considering the nature of accusation and the severity of punishment in case of conviction and the nature of supporting evidence, reasonable apprehension of tempering of the witnesses and prima facie satisfaction of the Court in support of the charge and reformative theory of punishment, and also considering the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties, larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India and the dictum of Apex Court in the case of Dataram Singh v. State of U.P. and another, reported in (2018) 3 SCC 22 , the applicant is entitled to be released on bail.

¶13

Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case let the applicant Anish @Olanga involved in Case Crime No.24 of 2018, under Sections 363, 366 I.P.C. & Sec. 7/8 POCSO Act, P.S. Barsaathi, District- Jaunpur be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:

¶14

(i) The applicant will co-operate with the trial and remain present personally on each and every date fixed after release.

¶15

(ii) The applicant will not tamper with the prosecution evidence and will not delay the disposal of trial in any manner whatsoever.

¶16

(iii) The applicant will not indulge in any unlawful activities.

¶17

(iv) The applicant will not misuse the liberty of bail in any manner whatsoever.

¶18

The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be verified by court concerned and in case of breach of any of the conditions mentioned above, court concerned will be at liberty to cancel the bail and send the applicant to prison.

¶19

The trial court is directed to expedite and conclude the trial of the applicant in the present case as expeditiously as possible from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order,, if there is

¶20

no legal impediment. keeping in view the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Alakh Alok Sroivastava Vs. Union of India and another reported in AIR 2018(SC) 2004.

¶21

Order Date :- 11.10.2018 IA

Anish @Olanga v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anish @Olanga v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dinesh Vs State of U.P.

Ravi Vs State of U.P.

Balendra Vs State of U.P.

Shambhu Vs State of U.P.

Raju Verma Vs State of U.P.

Hansraj @ Rajhans Vs State of U.P.