Allowed

Abhishek Singh S/O Rakesh Singh v. State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home and 3 Others

Allahabad HC20 May 2022/5028/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application where the applicant, charged with abduction and sexual offences, sought bail. The court considered the affidavit of the complainant stating the prosecutrix was married to the applicant and was pregnant. The court deemed it a fit case for bail in the larger interest of the prosecutrix and unborn child.

What did the court decide?

The applicant was released on bail after furnishing a personal bond and two sureties, subject to conditions regarding court appearance and non-exit from India.

Abhishek Singh S/O Rakesh Singh Vs State of… — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 11 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 5028 of 2022

¶2

Applicant :- Abhishek Singh S/O Rakesh Singh Opposite Party :- State Of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home And 3 Others

¶3

Counsel for Applicant :- Mithlesh Singh,Chandra Mohan Singh

¶4

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.

¶6

Heard Ms. Mithlesh Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State and Ms. Sumanlata, learned counsel for the complainant/ informant, who has filed supplementary counter affidavit, the same is taken on record.

¶7

Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that she is not willing to file reply of the said supplementary counter affidavit.

¶8

As per learned counsel for the applicant, the present applicant is languishing in jail since 09.03.2022 in Case Crime No.0008 of 2022, under Sections 363, 366 & 376 I.P.C. and Section 5 (j) (11)/6 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, Police Station-Makhi, District-Unnao. He has been falsely implicated in this case as he has not committed any offence as alleged in the prosecution story.

¶9

The attention of this Court has been drawn towards the impugned First Information Report (in short F.I.R.), which has been lodged by father of the prosecutrix, wherein the allegation of abduction has been levelled against five accused persons including the present applicant.

¶10

Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the present applicant and the prosecutrix were in love affairs and got married in one Arya Samaj Temple. She has also drawn attention of this Court towards the supplementary counter affidavit filed by the informant/ complainant wherein he himself has deposed that his daughter has got married with the present applicant and both were living as husband and wife. Presently, his daughter is pregnant of four months. He had lodged the F.I.R. at the behest of some people. He does not want to pursue the F.I.R.

¶11

However, on that, learned Additional Government Advocate has submitted that since the age of the prosecutrix, as per

¶12

educational certificate is around 14 years, as per medical certificate is around 15 years and as per own version of the prosecutrix she is about 16 years, therefore, the marriage of the prosecutrix with the present applicant is meaningless in the eyes of law. Besides, the consent of the prosecutrix is also meaningless as she is a minor.

¶13

However, on being confronted that the complainant/ informant of the F.I.R. who is father of the prosecutrix, has himself stated on affidavit that the prosecutrix has got married with the present applicant and she is pregnant of four months and she was living as wife of the present applicant before his arrest, learned Additional Government Advocate has again reiterated his submission that all the aforesaid acts of the prosecutrix and the present applicant has got no value in the eyes of law.

¶14

Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that since the charge-sheet has been filed in this case, therefore, there is no apprehension of absconding the present applicant or tampering with the evidences if the present applicant is released on bail. He shall not misuse the liberty of bail and shall look after the prosecutrix properly as she is his wife. There is no criminal history of any kind whatsoever against the present applicant.

¶15

Learned counsel for the applicant has undertaken on behalf of the present applicant that the applicant shall not misuse the liberty of bail, if so granted by this Court and shall abide by all terms and conditions of the bail order and shall cooperate with the trial proceedings.

¶16

Learned Additional Government Advocate has, however, opposed the prayer for bail by submitting that since the role of the present applicant was found in the commission of crime, therefore, he is not entitled for grant of bail, but he could not dispute the aforesaid factual contention of learned counsel for the applicant.

¶17

Without entering into merits of the issue and considering the contents of the affidavit of the complainant/ informant, who is father of the prosecutris, wherein he has stated that the prosecutrix is living with her family before his arrest, the prosecutrix and the present applicant were living as husband and wife and the prosecutrix is pregnant of four months, therefore, despite noticing the fact that at the very age of the prosecutrix she should not enter into the institution of marriage and her consent has got no value in the eyes of law, but in view of the peculiar fact and circumstances and considering the larger interest of the prosecutrix and the child who is in her womb, I find it a fit case for bail.

¶18

Accordingly, the bail application is allowed.

¶19

Let the applicant-Abhishek Singh, be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:-

¶20

(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.

¶21

(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 sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶22

(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.

¶23

(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 sufficient 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.

¶24

(v) The applicant shall not leave the country without prior permission of the Court.

¶25

Order Date :- 20.5.2022 [Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.] Suresh/

¶26

Digitally signed by SURESH CHANDRA Date: 2022.05.20 16:53:30 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Abhishek Singh S/O Rakesh Singh v. State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Abhishek Singh S/O Rakesh Singh 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

Ramu Vs State of U.P. Thru. Principal Secretary, Home Deptt. Lko.

Ashraf Ali Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Civil Sectt. Lko.

Phoola Devi Alias Priyanka Devi Vs State of U.P. Thru Prin.Secy. Home Lucknow

Raj Kumar Vs State of U.P. through the Principle Secretary Department Od Home, U.P. Civil Secretariat, Lko

Chandani and another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Principal Secretary Home Lucknow

Bankey Lal Vs the State of U.P. Thru. Prin.Secy.Dept of Home U.P. Civil Secrt. Lko.