Allowed

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

Allahabad HC27 Sept 2022BAIL/40252/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge allowed bail to the applicant, who was accused of sexual intercourse with a minor under POCSO and IPC, citing his lack of prior record and the existence of a relationship between the parties.

What did the court decide?

Released on bail subject to personal bond, two local sureties, and conditions prohibiting criminal activity, tampering with evidence, and ensuring regular court attendance.

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

¶1

Court No. - 44

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 40252 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Aryendra Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Satish Solanki Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Dr. Kaushal Jayendra Thaker,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Satish Solanki, learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record of the present bail application.

¶6

The present bail application has been filed by the applicant - Aryendra with a prayer to enlarge him on bail in Case Crime No. 281 of 2022, under Sections 363, 366, 376 I.P.C. and 5 (J)(ii)/6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, Police Station Dataganj, District Budaun.

¶7

It appears that the applicant had entered into sexual intercourse with the prosecutrix, whose age appears to be 17 years and, therefore, the POCSO Act has been applied. No doubt it is a serious offence but looking to the understanding age of 'prosecutrix' these days, this Court feels that the applicant be enlarged on bail as there was love affair.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant has no previous criminal history and there is no possibility of fleeing away from the judicial process or tampering with the witnesses and in case, the applicant is enlarged on bail, the applicant shall not misuse the liberty of bail. The applicant has been in jail since 20.7.2022, hence, he is entitled to bail.

¶9

Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of bail to the applicant but could not dispute the aforesaid facts as argued by the learned counsel for the applicant.

¶10

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case as well as submissions made by learned counsel for the parties

¶11

and also perusing the material on record, without expressing any opinion on merit of the case, let the applicant - Aryendra involved in aforesaid case crime be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two local sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned, subject to the following conditions:-

¶12

(i) The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal activity.

¶13

(ii) The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence.

¶14

(iii) The applicant shall not pressurize the prosecution witnesses.

¶15

(iv) The applicant shall regularly appear on the dates fixed by the trial court unless his personal attendance is exempted by the trial court.

¶16

In case of default of any of the conditions enumerated above, it will be open to the opposite parties to approach the Court for cancellation of bail.

¶17

Order Date :- 27.9.2022

¶18

Irshad

¶19

Digitally signed by IRSHAD AHMAD SIDDIQUI Date: 2022.10.01 17:14:25 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Aryendra 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

Smt Santra @ Santara Devi Vs Udairaj and 6 Others

Ras Bihari Vs Maya Devi Alleged and Another

Maya Devi Vs Govind Ram Goswami and Another

Shivbaran Prajapati Vs State of U.P.

Rizwan Khan Vs State of U.P.

Abhishek Yadav Vs State of U.P.