Dismissed

Mukesh S/O Jawahar Madeshia v. State of U.P. Thru Prin.Secy. Home and 3 Others

Allahabad HC1 Dec 2022/4576/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court rejected the bail application of an accused in a POCSO case. The applicant, who was initially granted interim bail with a condition to perform marriage, refused to marry the prosecutrix. Consequently, the Court denied bail but left open the possibility of reviving the plea after the prosecution is examined.

What did the court decide?

Bail application rejected. Leave granted to revive the plea after examination of the prosecutrix.

Mukesh S/O Jawahar Madeshia Vs State of U.P… — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 10

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 4576 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Mukesh S/O Jawahar Madeshia Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru Prin.Secy. Home And 3 Others

¶4

Counsel for Applicant :- Saurabh Kumar Shukla Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Manoj Kumar Singh

¶5

Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar Singh,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the entire record.

¶7

By means of this application under Section 439 CrPC, the accused-applicant seeks bail in FIR No.0199 of 2021, under Sections 366, 363 and 376 IPC read with Section 3/4 POCSO Act and Sections 3(ii)(v) SC/ST Act lodged at Police Station Sujauli, District Bahraich.

¶8

Allegation in the FIR against the accused-applicant is that he enticed away the prosecutrix aged around 16 years on 23.11.2021; the prosecutrix was recovered on 13.12.2021; the prosecutrix in her statement recorded under Section 161 CrPC said that the accused-applicant promised to marry her and he took her on 23.11.2021 to Lucknow; they started living together and thereafter the accused-applicant refused to marry her; he brought her and left at bridge; in her statement recorded under Section 164 CrPC the prosecutrix said that on 23.11.2021, at around 11 a.m., she went with the accused-applicant as he called her; he took her to Lucknow where they lived for nine days; the accused-applicant performed marriage with the prosecutrix and brother of the accused-applicant was also present at the time of marriage; after marriage, the accusedapplicant and prosecutrix went to sister of the accusedapplicant, Sunita at Lakhimpur Road Paliya as Sunita said the accused-applicant and the prosecutrix to come there and she would arrange court marriage; after they reached to residence of sister of the accused-applicant, Sunita said the accusedapplicant that he should not marry the prosecutrix as she belonged to different caste and there would be problem of marriage of his sisters. On this, the accused-applicant removed the bangles and vermilion and assaulted the prosecutrix. Thereafter, the accused-applicant brought the prosecutrix and left her near police station Sujauli. The accused-applicant said that he would not marry with the prosecutrix and whatever was to be done, it was done.

¶9

4.This Court vide order dated 31.10.2022 enlarged the accusedapplicant on interim bail for a period of 20 days, considering the statement of the learned counsel for the accused-applicant that the accused-applicant would perform marriage with the prosecutrix, if he was enlarged on interim bail. After this Court passed the order on 31.10.2022, the accused-applicant has not performed marriage with the prosecutrix.

¶10

Learned counsel for the accused-applicant submits that the accused-applicant is not ready to perform marriage with the prosecutrix.

¶11

Considering wavering stand of the accused-applicant with respect to performing marriage with the prosecutrix, this Court does not deem it appropriate to enlarge the accused-applicant on bail.

¶12

7. REJECTED.

¶13

However, once the prosecutrix is examined in the Court, the accused-applicant may revive his bail plea by placing her evidence on record by way of an affidavit, if so advised.

¶14

[D.K. Singh, J.]

¶15

Order Date :- 1.12.2022 MVS/-

¶16

Digitally signed by MANOJ VIKRAM SINGH CHAUHAN Date: 2022.12.01 18:23:00 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Mukesh S/O Jawahar Madeshia v. State of U.P. Thru Prin.Secy. Home and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mukesh S/O Jawahar Madeshia v. State of U.P. Thru Prin.Secy. Home and 3 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

Central Bureau of Investigation Thru. S.P. A.C.B. Lucknow Vs U.O.I. Thru. Asstt. Director Enforcement Directorate Alld.

Amit Singh S/O Lalla Singh (Second Bail) Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko

Mayank Bajpai Vs State of U.P. through S.P. Cbi/Acb Lko.

Durgeshwar Mishra Vs State of U.P. Thru. Superitendent of Police Cbi/Scb

Mohd. Rashid @ Abba Vs State of U.P. Through the Principal Secretary Home, civil Secretary, U.P. Government Lucknow

Ram Sumiran Alias Lala Vs the State of U.P. Thru.Prin.Secy.Home Deptt. Lucknow and Others