Allowed

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

Allahabad HC25 Mar 2022BAIL/55625/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a bail application under Section 439 CrPC concerning charges of enticement and abduction under IPC and POCSO, the court observed the victim was likely a major based on her statements and age assessment. The court granted bail subject to conditions regarding attendance, non-tampering of evidence, and restricting adjournments, allowing the applicant to be released on personal bond and sureties.

What did the court decide?

Accused released on bail on personal bond and two sureties on conditions of non-tampering, non-harassment, and strict adherence to court dates.

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

¶1

Court No. - 67

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 55625 of 2021

¶3

Applicant :- Lalu Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Pradeep Kumar,Atmaram Nadiwal,Dinesh Kumar Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Sameer Jain,J.

¶5

Vakalatnama filed today by Sri Babit Kumar on behalf of the complainant, is taken on record.

¶6

Heard Sri Dinesh Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant; Sri Babit Kumar, learned counsel for the complainant; Sri Inspector Singh, learned AGA for the State and perused the records of the case.

¶7

This bail application under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the applicant- Lalu, seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No. 209 of 2021, under Sections 363, 366, 376 I.P.C. and 3/4 POCSO Act, registered at P.S.Paniyara, District-Maharajganj.

¶8

According to the FIR, minor daughter of the informant was enticed away by the applicant on 22.8.2021 with the help of co-accused Santira Devi. The FIR was lodged by the father of the victim under Sections 363, 120-B IPC against the applicant and Santira Devi on 31.8.2021. Thereafter on 31.10.2021 victim and applicant were apprehended by the police when she was standing near Bhawavanipur Chauraha at a tea stall. Victim in her statement recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C. stated that her age is 19 years and she was in love with the applicant and she on her own will went alongwith the applicant and both went to Rajkot Gujarat where they performed marriage in a temple and they were started living as husband and wife when they were returned back to home to perform court marriage, they were apprehended by the police. The victim in her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. also almost repeated the same version and specifically stated that she is living with the applicant as wife and neither applicant enticed away nor he in any manner instigated her. She further stated in her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. that she

¶9

want to live with applicant. As per radiological report her age was about 18 to 19 years.

¶10

Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the victim is a major girl and she on her own will want to go in the company of applicant and also performed marriage with him and from the statement of the victim, it is apparent that the present case is not a case of rape and, therefore, applicant who is in jail since 31.10.2021 having no criminal history may be released on bail.

¶11

Per contra learned counsel for the complainant and the learned AGA for the State vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that the applicant forcibly took away the girl (victim) and later on, forcibly perform marriage with her. He further submitted that the victim as per the FIR is minor and her radiological report in respect of age is not very convincing, therefore, the bail application of the applicant is liable to be rejected.

¶12

I have heard learned counsel for both the parties and perused the records of the case.

¶13

As per the statement of victim recorded under Section 161 and 164 Cr.P.C., age of the victim is 19 years and as per the radiological report, she is between 18 to 19 years, therefore, it appears that she is major. Further there is no allegation against the applicant either in her statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. or under Section 164 Cr.P.C. Rather in the statement recorded under Section 164, she specifically stated that she want to live with the applicant and applicant never enticed her away and in both the statements, she stated that she performed marriage with the applicant according to her own sweet will.

¶14

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that the applicant may be released on bail. Therefore, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, let the applicant- Lalu, 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 with the following conditions which are being imposed in the interest of justice:-

¶15

i) The applicant will not tamper with prosecution evidence and will not harm or harass the victim/complainant in any manner whatsoever.

¶16

ii) The applicant will abide the orders of court, will attend the court on every date and will not delay the disposal of trial in any manner whatsoever.

¶17

(iii) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that she shall not seek any adjournment on the date fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law.

¶18

(iv) The applicant will not misuse the liberty of bail in any manner whatsoever. In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence proclamation under section 82 Cr.P.C., may be issued and if applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under section 174-A I.P.C.

¶19

(V) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on dates fixed for (1) opening of the case, (2) framing of charge and (3) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. If in the opinion of the trial court absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law and the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229-A IPC.

¶20

(vi) The trial court may make all possible efforts/endeavor and try to conclude the trial expeditiously after the release of the applicant.

¶21

The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be verified by court concerned and in case of breach of any of the conditions mentioned above, court concerned will be at liberty to cancel the bail and send the applicant to prison.

¶22

The bail application is, accordingly, allowed .

¶23

Order Date :- 25.3.2022 Ankita

¶24

Digitally signed by ANKITA SRIVASTAVA Date: 2022.03.28 13:12:45 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Lalu 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

Sanjay and Anothers Vs State of U.P.

Rajmati Dhangar Vs State of U.P.

Neelam Vs State of U.P through Its Secretary Home Up at Lucknow

Subhawati Devi Vs State of U.P

Saarif @ Sharif Vs State of U.P.

Asif Vs State of U.P.