Allowed

Keshav Saroj @ Chhotu v. State of U.P. and Anr.

Allahabad HC16 May 2022/2514/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a bail application concerning POCSO and rape charges, the single judge noted the absence of the complainant. Despite age discrepancies in the prosecutrix's statement, the court focused on the minor's age and the applicant's detention duration to grant bail.

What did the court decide?

Release of the applicant on personal bond and two sureties subject to standard bail undertakings to attend trials and not seek adjournments.

Keshav Saroj @ Chhotu Vs State of U.P. and… — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 12

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 2514 of 2020

¶3

Applicant :- Keshav Saroj @ Chhotu Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Anr. Counsel for Applicant :- Rajesh Singh,Akhilesh Pratap Singh,Dileep Singh,Prashant Kumar Singh,Pravin Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar Singh,J.

¶5

Heard Mr. Prashant Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, Mr. L.J. Maurya, learned A.G.A. and perused the record.

¶6

Despite service of notice no one has put in appearance on behalf of the complainant to oppose the bail application.

¶7

The present application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. has been filed seeking bail in FIR No.77 of 2019, under Sections 363, 366, 376, 506 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of Protection of Child from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, Police Station Manikpur, District Pratapgarh.

¶8

The allegation against the accused-applicant is that he enticed away the prosecutrix, aged about 17 years, on 26.11.2018. It is also said that on the pretext of marrying with the prosecutrix, the applicant has been raping the prosecutrix. On 23.11.2019, the applicant brought back the prosecutrix and left her at Kunda market and said that if she complains about the accused-applicant, she will face dire consequences. The incident alleged to have taken place on 26.11.2018, however, the First Information Report came to be registered on 12.04.2019. The prosecutrix's radiological age has been determined to be above 18 years. In her statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., she has supported the prosecution case and said that on 26.11.2018, the accusedapplicant took the prosecutrix to Gohand, Kanpur Dehat on the pretext of marrying her. The accused-applicant and the prosecutrix lived in

¶9

Gohand for 3-4 months without marrying as husband and wife. The accused-applicant has established physical relationship with the prosecutrix and when she asked for marriage she was beaten up. It is further said that the accusedapplicant got her back to his village where parents of the accused chased him away. In her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C., the prosecutrix said that she went with the accused-applicant as he had said that he would marry her. They lived at Kanpur for about 3-4 months as husband and wife. The accused applicant applied vermilion on the forehead of the prosecutrix. She also said that she was enjoying living with the accused-applicant and he used to establish physical relation without her consent. Paradoxically it is said that since the accused-applicant used to have physical relation with her, therefore, she was loving to live with the accused applicant.

¶10

Learned AGA has opposed the prayer for bail, but not disputed the aforesaid facts.

¶11

Considering the age of the prosecutrix and her statements recorded under Sections 161 Cr.P.C. and 164 Cr.P.C. and also taking into consideration that the accused applicant is in jail since 20.10.2019, it would be appropriate to enlarge the accused-applicant on bail.

¶12

Let applicant Keshav Saroj @ Chhotu be released on bail in the above case crime number on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of Court concerned with the following conditions :-

¶13

(i) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law.

¶14

(ii) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufÏcient cause, the trial court may

¶15

proceed against him under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶16

(iii) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued and the applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶17

(iv) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. If in the opinion of the trial court absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufÏcient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law.

¶18

Order Date :- 16.5.2022 Arjun/-

¶19

Digitally signed by ARJUN PRASAD Date: 2022.05.19 11:06:38 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Keshav Saroj @ Chhotu v. State of U.P. and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Keshav Saroj @ Chhotu v. State of U.P. and Anr.

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

Smt. Rajeshwari Vs State of U.P.and 3 Ors.

Bali Karan Vs State of U.P.and 5 Ors.

Santosh Kumar Gupta Vs State of U.P.

Mohd. Fakrey @ Mohd. Khursheed Alam Vs State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt.and 3 Others

Sanjeet (Second Bail) Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home and 3 Others

Ajay Kumar Shukla Vs State of Up through Principle Secretary Home