Allowed

Pradeep v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC5 Jul 2022BAIL/12079/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal bail application under Sections 363, 366, 376 IPC and Section 4 POCSO Act, the court allowed bail in favour of the applicant. The court noted that the applicant had no prior criminal record and found merit in the submissions that the victim was a major. Bail was granted on a personal bond and two sureties subject to specific conditions.

What did the court decide?

The applicant Pradeep is to be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties.

Pradeep Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 70

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 12079 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Pradeep Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Utsav,Anurag Prasad Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Arvind Kumar

¶4

Hon'ble Ajay Bhanot,J.

¶5

Shri Paritosh Kumar Malviya, learned AGA for the State contends that the police authorities in compliance of the directions issued by this Court in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 46998 of 2020 (Junaid Vs State of U.P. and another) reported at 2021 (6) ADJ 511 and with a view to implement the provisions of POCSO Act, 2012 read with POCSO Rules, 2020, have served the bail application upon the informant/victim as well as upon the CWC. Shri Arvind Kumar, learned counsel has entered appearance on behalf of the victim.

¶6

By means of this bail application the applicant has prayed to be enlarged on bail in Case Crime No. 144 of 2021 at Police Station Mau District Chitrakoot under Sections 363, 366, 376 IPC and Section 4 of POCSO Act. The applicant is in jail since 19.08.2021.

¶7

The bail application of the applicant was rejected by learned Additional Sessions Judge (Rape and POCSO Act), Chitrakoot on 10.09.2021.

¶8

Shri Utsav, learned counsel for the applicant contends that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the

¶9

instant case. The F.I.R incorrectly depicts the age of the victim as 17 years. The medical examination opines that the victim is between 17-18 years. The age of the victim as depicted in the school certificate was also incorrectly recorded by the victim's parents to give her an unfair advantage in life. The victim is infact a major. The applicant and the victim were intimate. Their consensual relationship was opposed by the family members of the victim. The victim in her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. has admitted to intimacy with the applicant. She has further asserted that she eloped with him of her own volition. She travelled with the applicant to various places and voluntarily developed physical relations. The two have got married. The victim has then asserted that she is desirous of staying with her husband. No allegation of rape or forceful assault has been made against the applicant by the victim in her statement. The F.I.R. has been lodged at the behest the mother of the victim only to deflect attention from the victim and cause a breach in her relationship with her husband. The medical evidence does not corroborate allegation of rape or forceful assault. False allegations under the POCSO Act have been made only to ensure the indefinite imprisonment of the applicant. Learned counsel for the applicant contends that the applicant does not have any criminal history apart from the instant case.

¶10

Shri Paritosh Kumar Malviya, learned AGA for the

¶11

State and Shri Arvind Kumar, learned counsel for the informant could not satisfactorily dispute the aforesaid submissions from the record. Learned AGA does not dispute the fact that the applicant does not have any criminal history apart from this case.

¶12

I see merit in the submissions of learned counsel for the applicant and accordingly hold that the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail.

¶13

In the light of the preceding discussion and without making any observations on the merits of the case, the bail application is allowed.

¶14

Let the applicant- Pradeep be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number, on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court below. The following conditions be imposed in the interest of justice:-

¶15

(i) The applicant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.

¶16

(ii) The applicant will not influence any witness.

¶17

(iii) The applicant will appear before the trial court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted.

¶18

(iv) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court to any police officer

¶19

or tamper with the evidence.

¶20

In case of breach of any of the above condition, the prosecution shall be at liberty to move bail cancellation application before this Court.

¶21

Order Date :- 5.7.2022 Dhananjai

¶22

Digitally signed by DHANANJAI Date: 2022.07.06 17:12:42 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Pradeep v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pradeep v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Seema Vs State of U.P.

Arvind Yadav Vs State of U.P.

Surendra Vs State of U.P. Thr Pri. Sec. Home Govt. of U.P.

Shantiswaroop Vs State of U.P. and Another

Virendra Kumar Patel Vs State of U.P.

Rajesh Kumar Vs State of U.P. and Another