Allowed

Rajan Agrahari v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC15 Nov 2018BAIL/29667/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a bail application concerning offenses under the IPC and POCSO Act, the court considered medico-legal evidence placing the prosecutrix's age above 18 and her statement suggesting relationship issues before granting bail with specific conditions.

What did the court decide?

Accused released on bail on executing personal bond and furnishing two sureties each, subject to conditions regarding tampering with evidence, harassment, and appearance.

Rajan Agrahari Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others — Narcotics (NDPS) | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 53

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 29667 of 2018

¶3

Applicant :- Rajan Agrahari Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Ali Hasan,Istiyaq Ali,Virendra Kumar Shukla Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble J.J. Munir,J.

¶5

Counter affidavit filed on behalf of the State today in the Court is taken on record.

¶6

This is an application for bail on behalf of the applicant Rajan Agrahari, who is in jail since 02.07.2018 in connection with Case Crime No. 69 of 2018, under Sections 376,506,120-B IPC and Section 3/4 POCSO Act, P.S. Sarai Khwajai, District Jaunpur.

¶7

Heard Sri Ali Hasan, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Virendra Kumar Shukla, learned counsel appearing for the complainant and Sri Sudhir Kumar Pathak, learned AGA appearing for the State.

¶8

The submission of the learned counsel for the applicant is that going by the medico legal estimation of the prosecutrix's age, on the basis of ossification test where all the epiphysis of joints are fused, her age has been estimated to be about 18 years that clearly reckons her to be a major. He has further invited the attention of the Court to the statement of the prosecutrix under Section 164 Cr.P.C. where at the opening of her statement, she has spoken a few words inculpatory but thereafter said that she is doing so under pressure of her father. None of the three accused named in the statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. are involved and that she is in love with Rajan Agrahari, the applicant. She has further stated that she wants to marry Rajan Agrahari, and, on 5th March had gone over to the place of her own accord. It is also said that her family members brought her back forcibly. She has also said that the two had physical relations by consent.

¶9

Learned counsel for the complainant and learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that the applicant is a minor, going by the school record of class nine, and that the medico legal estimation of age is incorrect.

¶10

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature of allegation, the gravity of the offence, the severity of punishment, the evidence appearing in the case, in particular,

¶11

the medico legal evidence of age that clearly shows the prosecutrix a major and the statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. that is exculpatory but without expressing any opinion on merits, this Court, finds it to be a fit case for bail.

¶12

The bail application, accordingly, stands allowed .

¶13

Let the applicant Rajan Agrahari involved in Case Crime No. 69 of 2018, under Sections 376,506,120-B IPC and Section 3/4 POCSO Act, P.S. Sarai Khwajai, District Jaunpur be released on bail on executing his personal bond and furnishing two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:

¶14

i) The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence.

¶15

ii) The applicant shall not threaten or harass the prosecution witnesses.

¶16

iii) The applicant shall appear on the date fixed by the trial court.

¶17

iv) The applicant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which the applicant is accused, or suspected of the commission.

¶18

v) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade such person from disclosing facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶19

In case of default of any of the conditions enumerated above, the complainant would be free to move an application for cancellation of bail before this Court.

¶20

Order Date :- 15.11.2018 BKM/-

Rajan Agrahari v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajan Agrahari v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vipin Mishra Vs State of U.P.

vishnu @ vinay Vs State of U.P.

Rajju Alias Bangali Vs State of U.P.

Bade Lalla @ Jaduveer Singh Vs State of U.P.

Ravindra @ Ravi Vs State of U.P.

Mohit Pal Vs State of U.P.