Allowed

Hoshram v. State of U.P. Thru.Addl . Chief Secy. Home Civil Secrt. Lko. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC16 Mar 2023/207/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court allowed bail for an applicant charged with offences under IPC 363, 366, 376 and POCSO. The decision relied on the victim's consistent statement that she approached the applicant voluntarily without enticement.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail with two sureties, upon furnishing a bond and complying with conditions regarding prosecution witnesses and court attendance.

Hoshram Vs State of U.P. Thru.Addl . Chief… — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Court No. - 16

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 207 of 2023

¶3

Applicant :- Hoshram Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru.Addl . Chief Secy. Home Civil Secrt. Lko. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Manish Singh Chauhan Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Manish Singh Chauhan, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Jayant Singh Tomar, learned AGA-I for the State and perused the record.

¶6

The present bail application has been filed by the applicant with the prayer to enlarge him on bail in Case Crime No. 417/2022, under Sections 363/366/376 IPC & 3/4 POCSO Act, Police Station Kachauna, District Hardoi.

¶7

The aforesaid case has been registered on the basis of an FIR lodged on 04.09.2022 alleging that the informant's daughter aged about 16 years had been enticed away by the applicant on 27.08.2022. In her statement recorded under Section 161 CrPC, the informant's daughter stated that she knew the applicant for the past three years and she loves him; that she had gone to the appliant on 20.08.2022 and she had married him and is living in his house as his wife. She categorically stated that the applicant did not entice her away and she had gone to his home on her own, out of her own freewill.

¶8

In the medico legal examination report of the alleged victim, no mark of any external injury was found and no definite opinion could be given regarding any sexual assault.

¶9

In her statement recorded under Section 164 CrPC also, the alleged victim stated that she left her home out of her own freewill and she has married the applicant.

¶10

Having considered the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view the fact that the alleged victim has consistently stated that she went to live with the applicant out of

¶11

her own freewill and the applicant did not enticed her away and that she has married the applicant and also keeping the fact that the applicant has no previous criminal history and without making any observation which may affect the merit of the case, I am of the view that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail.

¶12

Accordingly, this bail application is allowed .

¶13

Let the applicant Hoshram be released on bail in Case Crime No. 417/2022, under Sections 363/366/376 IPC & 3/4 POCSO Act, Police Station Kachauna, District Hardoi on furnishing a bail bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of magistrate/court concerned, subject o following conditions:-

¶14

(i) the applicant shall not temper with the prosecution evidence; (ii) the applicant shall not pressurize the prosecution witnesses; (iii) the applicant shall appear on each and every date fixed by the trial court.

¶15

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

¶16

Order Date :- 16.3.2023

¶17

Pradeep/-

¶18

Digitally signed by :- PRADEEP SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Hoshram v. State of U.P. Thru.Addl . Chief Secy. Home Civil Secrt. Lko. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hoshram v. State of U.P. Thru.Addl . Chief Secy. Home Civil Secrt. Lko. 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

Chetram Lodh @ Jijau Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home Secrt. Lko. and 3 Others

Raja Ram and 3 Ors. Vs State of U.P.

Asharam Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home U.P. Lko.

Sohan Giri Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Smt. Mullayin Alias Aayesha Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Gajendra Yadav Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko.