Allowed

Jeetu v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC11 Sept 2019BAIL/34966/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a bail application under Cr.P.C. regarding offences under IPC 363, 376, and POCSO, the court granted bail noting a discrepancy between the victim's alleged age and factual timeline, and the victim's statement indicating a consensual relationship and marriage.

What did the court decide?

The applicant is released on bail on executing a personal bond and two reliable sureties each in the like amount, subject to specific conditions including not tampering with evidence and not indulging

Jeetu Vs State of U.P. — Dowry and Cruelty | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 79

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 34966 of 2019

¶3

Applicant :- Jeetu Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Akash Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Ram Krishna Gautam,J.

¶5

By means of this application the applicant Jeetu has prayed to release him on bail in Case Crime No. 69 of 2018, u/s 363, 376(1) I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of POCSO Act, P.S. Chakar Nagar, District Etawah.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned AGA representing the State. Perused the record.

¶7

Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the applicant is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in this very case crime number, which was got registered on 26.12.2018 for offence punishable under Section 363 I.P.C., in which prosecutrix was said to be of date of birth 15.7.2001 and have been enticed on 25.12.2018. She took Rs. 10,000/-, cash along with golden and silver ornaments, written in report. Whereas, prosecutrix in her statement, recorded under Section 161 and 164 of Cr.P.C., has categorically said to be with accused applicant under her own volition and married with him. She has been held to be of 18 years in medical age determination test. Accused applicant is of no criminal antecedent. There is no likelihood of applicant's fleeing from course of justice or tempering with evidence in case he is released on bail. Hence bail has been prayed for during trial.

¶8

Learned AGA has vehemently opposed the bail application.

¶9

Having heard learned counsel for both sides and gone through the material placed on record, it is apparent that prosecutrix was said to be of date of birth 15.7.2001 and had fled on 25.12.2018 i.e. 17 years and 6 months whereas in medical age determination, she has been held to be of 18 years and she, in her statement recorded under Section 161 and 164 of Cr.P.C., has levelled no accusation against accused applicant rather she has married with him. Hence, a case for bail during trial is made out.

¶10

Accordingly, the bail application is allowed.

¶11

Let the applicant, Jeetu, involved in above mentioned case crime number be released on bail on his executing a personal bond and two reliable sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to the following conditions:

¶12

The applicant will not tamper with the evidence.

¶13

The applicant will not indulge in any criminal activity.

¶14

The applicant will not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witnesses and co-operate in the trial.

¶15

The applicant will appear regularly on each and every date fixed by the trial court unless his personal appearance is exempted through counsel by the court concerned.

¶16

In the event of breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the court below will be at liberty to proceed to cancel his bail.

¶17

Order Date :- 11.9.2019 Kamarjahan

Jeetu v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jeetu 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bachu @ Hira Lal Vs State of U.P.

Arvind Parmar @ Bunty and 2 Others Vs State of U.P.

Arvind Parmar @ Banti Raja and 2 Others Vs State of U.P.

Dr.Rajnish Vs State of U.P. and Another

Sanjay Verma and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Saurabh Vs State of U.P. and Another