This single-judge order rejected an anticipatory bail application under S. 438 Cr.P.C. The court held that the applicant, accused of enticement and rape against a minor girl, was not entitled to bail due to credible allegations and grave nature of the offences.
Application for anticipatory bail under S. 438 Cr.P.C. rejected.
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. - 75
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 5050 of 2022
Applicant :- Omkar Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Rajendra Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Raj Beer Singh,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
This anticipatory bail application has been moved seeking bail in Case Crime No.45/2022, under Sections 363/366/120-B IPC, P.S. Kerakat, District Jaunpur with the prayer that in the event of arrest, applicant may be released on bail.
It has been argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that applicant is innocent and he has an apprehension that he may be arrested in the above-mentioned case, whereas there is no credible evidence against him. It was stated that as per Adhar Card the age of victim girl is 19 years and thus, she is a major girl and that applicant and victim have married each other on 24.12.2021 at a temple in Jaunpur and in this regard, a marriage agreement was prepared, which has been annexed to this application as Annexure-4 and later on they have also applied for on-line registration of their marriage. The victim girl has made an application to S.P., Jaunpur regarding her safety and security. In her statement under Section 164 CrPC, victim has clearly stated that she has got married with applicant-accused Omkar with her own free will and thus, no case at all is made out against applicant. The applicant has no criminal antecedents and that applicant undertakes to co-operate during investigation and trial and he would appear as and when required by the investigating agency or Court. It was further submitted that in
case, the applicant is granted anticipatory bail he would cooperate during investigation and trial and would obey the conditions of bail.
Learned A.G.A. has opposed the application for anticipatory bail and argued that in educational record, including the high school certificate of the victim girl, her date of birth has been shown as 09.01.2005 and thus, at the time of alleged incident victim was aged about 17 years and thus, she was a minor girl. Applicant has enticed her away and took her to Pune. In her statement under Section 164 CrPC, victim has stated that she has gone with applicant with her own free will and she has also alleged that physical relations were established with her and thus, a case under Section 363/366/376 IPC as well as 3/4 POCSO Act is made against applicant, as the consent of victim is immaterial. Regarding contention of learned counsel for the applicant that applicant has married with victim, it has been pointed out that in her statement under Section 164 CrPC, victim has no-where stated that she has married with applicant. The alleged agreement of marriage between the applicant and victim girl cannot be termed as a valid document of marriage. It was pointed out that from case diary, it appears that section 376 IPC and 3/4 POCSO Act have already been added against applicant.
Considering the submissions of learned counsel for the parties, nature of accusations and all attending facts of the matter, the applicant is not entitled for anticipatory bail. Hence the present application for anticipatory bail is hereby rejected.
Order Date :- 8.8.2022 Neeraj
Digitally signed by NEERAJ KUMAR SINGH Date: 2022.08.11 11:20:13 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the applicant is entitled to anticipatory bail in a case involving allegations of enticement, abduction, and sexual assault against a minor.
Whether consent of the victim is relevant in the case of alleged POCSO and Section 376 offences.
Whether a private marriage agreement between the parties negates the allegations of abduction and sexual assault.
4 provisions across 3 enactments
Omkar
Raj Beer Singh
Neeraj
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
