Allowed

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

Allahabad HC7 Jul 2022BAIL/3691/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed an amendment to a bail application filed by a woman shelter home resident accused of sexual offences under the POCSO Act. The court held that the applicant, detained since August 2021, had sufficient grounds including false implication and injury bond reciprocity, and ordered his release on bail.

What did the court decide?

The applicant is released on bail by furnishing a personal bond and sureties.

Ashish Kumar Urf Lallu Vs State of U.P.and 3… — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 70

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 3691 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Ashish Kumar Urf Lallu Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Deena Nath Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Devesh Kumar Gupta,Rajendra Singh Parihar

¶4

Hon'ble Ajay Bhanot,J.

¶5

Criminal Misc. Amendment Application

¶6

Heard.

¶7

The amendment application is allowed.

¶8

The counsel for the applicant is permitted to carry out amendment during the course of the day.

¶9

Order on Bail Application

¶10

Shri Amit Kumar, learned brief holder 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 notices of the bail application upon the the victim as well as the CWC. Form A and Form B are also available in the record.

¶11

The C.W.C., district-Fatehpur on its part has sent instructions to the Government Advocate.

¶12

By means of this bail application the applicant has prayed to be enlarged on bail in Case Crime No.203 of 2021 at Police Station Lalauli District Fatehpur under Sections 313, 323, 376, 506 IPC and Section 5/6 POCSO Act. The applicant is in jail since 23.08.2021.

¶13

The bail application of the applicant was rejected by learned Incharge Sessions Judge/ Special Judge (POCSO Act), Fatehpur on 11.10.2021.

¶14

Shri D.N. Joshi, learned counsel for the applicant contends that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the instant case. The FIR was lodged more than 9 months and 20 days after the alleged incident. The delay in the lodgment of the FIR is fatal to the prosecution case in the facts of this case. Medical report opines that the victim is 19 years of age. The applicant and the victim were intimate. Their relationship was opposed by the family members of the victim. The FIR is a result of the aforesaid opposition. The victim in her statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C has stated that the applicant used to molest her in the month of November, 2020. In the same month he took the victim to the nearby forest and established physical relations with her. The victim thereafter became an expectant mother. When her pregnancy was 5 months old, she and her mother came to inform the family members of the applicant who drove them away. It is also stated that the applicant along with one Sushma and Upendra came to

¶15

the house of the victim blind folded her and threatened her and got the foetus aborted without her knowledge.

¶16

The victim was a consenting party at all relevant points in time. The victim had many love interests. False and aggravated statement of the victim under Sections 161 Cr.P.C and 164 Cr.P.C are not only unworthy of belief but are also duly tutored. The statements have been made at the behest of her parents to deflect attention from her own conduct. Learned counsel for the applicant contends that the applicant does not have any criminal history apart from this case.

¶17

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

¶18

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.

¶19

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

¶20

Let the applicant-Ashish Kumar Urf Lallu be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the

¶21

like amount to the satisfaction of the court below. The following conditions be imposed in the interest of justice:-

¶22

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

¶23

(ii) The applicant will not influence any witness.

¶24

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

¶25

(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.

¶26

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

¶27

Order Date :- 7.7.2022 Nadeem

¶28

Digitally signed by NADEEM AHMAD Date: 2022.07.12 10:32:53 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ashish Kumar Urf Lallu 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

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.

Mohit Vs State of U.P.

Monu Vs State of U.P. and Another