Allowed

Monu v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC7 Jul 2022BAIL/13754/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Court allowed bail to Applicant-Monu in a POCSO/I.P.C. case involving alleged abduction and sexual intercourse. Court found merit in submission that the victim was a major and the case involved a consensual relationship opposed by parents, noting lack of medical evidence for rape.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail by furnishing a personal bond and two sureties in like amount.

Monu Vs State of U.P. and Another — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 70 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 13754 of 2022 Applicant :- Monu Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Kameshwar Singh,Sudhanshu Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Mohd Haris Khan Hon'ble Ajay Bhanot,J.

¶2

By means of this bail application the applicant has prayed to be enlarged on bail in Case Crime No.367 of 2021 at Police Station-Kairana, DistrictShamli under Sections 363, 366, 376(3) IPC and Section 3/4(2) of the POCSO Act. The applicant is in jail since 06.11.2021.

¶3

The bail application of the applicant was rejected by learned Additional District and Sessions Judge/learned Special Judge (POCSO Act), Shamli on 18.01.2022.

¶4

Shri Kameshwar Singh, learned counsel for the applicant contends that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the instant case. The prosecution case incorrectly depicts the age of the victim as 15 years. The victim is in fact a major. Medical examination to determine the correct age of the victim as per the established medical protocol by eminent doctors from a reputed institution was not got done by the prosecution as it would falsify the prosecution case. The applicant and the victim were intimate. Their consensual relationship was opposed by her parents of the victim. The victim in her statement under Section

¶5

164 Cr.P.C. has admitted to intimacy with the applicant. She has further asserted that she eloped with the applicant and got married to him of her own volition. According to the victim, she and the applicant and the victim went to various places, they resided together at Yamuna Nagar in a rented accommodation and established a physical relationship. She wishes to stay in her marital home. The victim in her statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. has asserted that she accompanied with the applicant. No allegation of abduction, rape or inappropriate behaviour has been made against the applicant. Medical evidence does not establish any rape or forceful assault. Learned counsel for the applicant contends that the applicant does not have any criminal history apart from the instant case.

¶6

Shri Paritosh Kumar Malviya, learned A.G.A. as well as Shri Mohd Haris Khan, learned counsel for the informant could not satisfactorily dispute the aforesaid submissions from the record. They, however, do not dispute the fact that the applicant does not have any criminal history apart from this case.

¶7

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

¶8

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

¶9

Let the applicant-Monu 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 concerned subject to following conditions.

¶10

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

¶11

(ii) The applicant will not influence any witness. (iii) The applicant will appear before the trial court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted.

¶12

(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 or tamper with the evidence.

¶13

In case of breach of any of the above condition, the prosecution shall be at liberty to move bail cancellation application before this Court. Order Date :- 7.7.2022 Ashish Tripathi

¶14

Digitally signed by ASHISH NAYAN TRIPATHI Date: 2022.07.11 10:21:38 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Monu v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Monu v. State of U.P. and Another

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

Sandeep Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Praveen Vs State of U.P.

Kamil Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Manoj Vs State of U.P.

Ashish Kumar Urf Lallu Vs State of U.P.and 3 Others

Mohit Vs State of U.P.