In a bail application under Sections 363, 366, and 354(D)(II) of IPC and POCSO, the applicant was charged with enticing minors. The court found no good ground to release the applicant on bail and rejected the application.
Bail application rejected; applicant not enlarged on bail.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 2
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 20042 of 2021
Applicant :- Zaya Akhtar @ Kallu Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Prem Narayan Singh,Anil Kumar Srivastava (Senior Adv.),Narayan Singh(Kushwaha),Ram Bahadur Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Binod Kumar Tripathi
Hon'ble Suneet Kumar,J.
The Court convened through video conferencing.
Heard Sri Anil Kumar Srivastava, Senior Advocate, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Vinod Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel for the first informant and learned A.G.A. for the State.
This bail application has been moved to enlarge the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 119 of 2021, under sections 363, 366, 354(D) (II) I.P.C. and Section 11/12 Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, Police Station Kotwali Nagar, District Etah.
As per prosecution case, the minor victims are aged about 14/15 years, they were enticed and, subsequently, recovered; during investigation, name of the applicant surfaced; mobile phone used in the commission of the offence is that of the applicant.
It is urged by learned counsel for the applicant that there is no evidence against the applicant; applicant has been falsely implicated on the confessional statement; the applicant is having no criminal antecedent.
Learned A.G.A. and learned counsel for the informant, inform that the applicant has been instrumental in alluring the victims from the custody of the parents; objectionable photographs were made viral which is part of the case diary; the applicant is a married person and the mobile phone used in the commission of the offence belongs to the applicant. It is not in the public interest to enlarge the applicant on bail.
Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case and considering the submission advanced, I find no good ground for grant of bail to the applicant.
Accordingly, the bail application is rejected.
Order Date :- 22.6.2021 K.K. Maurya
Digitally signed by Justice Suneet Kumar Date: 2021.06.23 17:16:24 IST Reason: Document Owner Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
2 issues framed by the court
Whether bail should be granted to the applicant in a case involving enticement of minors and defamation under IPC and POCSO.
Whether the public interest and nature of the offence preclude bail under the relevant provisions.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Zaya Akhtar @ Kallu
State of U.P.
Suneet Kumar
K.K. Maurya
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
