Allowed

Pintu v. State of U.P And 3 Others

Allahabad HC11 Nov 2022BAIL/22128/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court Court No. 73 allowed a bail application filed by Pintu, accused of offences under IPC Sections 363, 366, 376 and POCSO Sections 3/4. The court found a case for bail was made out despite conflicting age claims, releasing the accused on bond and sureties.

What did the court decide?

Bail granted on furnishing a personal bond and two local sureties subject to standard non-interference conditions.

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

¶1

Court No. - 73

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 22128 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Pintu Opposite Party :- State Of U.P And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Ajendra Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Dwijendra Prasad

¶4

Hon'ble Raj Beer Singh,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned counsel for the complainant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the entire record.

¶6

The present bail application has been filed by the applicant in case crime No. 347/2021, under Sections 363, 366, 376 IPC & Sections 3/4 of POCSO Act, police station Dholna, District Kasganj with the prayer to enlarge the applicant on bail.

¶7

It has been argued by learned counsel for the applicant that the accused-applicant is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in this case. It was submitted that as per age certificate issued by concerned CMO, on the basis of ossification test, the age of victim girl is 18 years. In her statements, recorded under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C., victim girl has clearly stated that she has gone with applicant to Gujarat with her own free will and they have married with each other. In her statement, victim girl has stated her age as 20 years. Learned counsel submitted that the alleged school certificate, relied upon by the prosecution, regarding age of victim, is not reliable and all attending facts and circumstances of the case show that victim is a major girl. It has further been argued that the applicant is in judicial custody since 15.03.2022, having no criminal history and in case, applicant is enlarged on bail, the applicant will not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶8

Learned counsel for the complainant has not opposed the prayer for bail and argued that applicant and victim have married with

¶9

each other.

¶10

Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail and argued that as per school record, victim is a minor girl.

¶11

Considering the submissions of learned counsel for the parties, facts of the case, nature of allegations, period of custody and all attending facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court is of the view that a case for bail is made out. Hence, the bail application is hereby allowed.

¶12

Let the applicant Pintu involved in the aforesaid crime be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two local sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of court concerned subject to the following conditions:

¶13

The applicant will not tamper with the evidence during trial.

¶14

The applicant will not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witnesses.

¶15

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

¶16

The applicant will not try to contact, threat or otherwise influence the complainant or any of the witness of the case.

¶17

In case of breach of any of the above condition, the court below shall be at liberty to cancel the bail of applicant in accordance with law.

¶18

Order Date :- 11.11.2022 Anand

¶19

Digitally signed by ANAND VERMA Date: 2022.11.14 11:21:25 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Pintu v. State of U.P And 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pintu 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Naseem Vs State of U.P.

Manjesh Vs State of U.P.

Shravan Kumar Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Smt. Savita Devi Vs State of Uttar Pradesh

Sachin Vs State of Up Though Principal Secretary U.P.

Smt. Kusma Vs State of U.P.