Allowed

Rishabh Srivastava v. State of U.P. Thru. the Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Civil Lko. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC12 Jul 2023/217/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal miscellaneous bail application, the Allahabad High Court granted bail to the accused charged with offences under IPC and POCSO. The Court found discrepancies between victim statements suggesting voluntary association and granted bail pending medical report.

What did the court decide?

Released on bail with personal bond and sureties, subject to conditions including attendance and not inducing witnesses.

Rishabh Srivastava Vs State of U.P. Thru… — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC-LKO:45292

¶2

Court No. - 11

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 217 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Rishabh Srivastava Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. The Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Civil Lko. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Arun Kumar Mishra,Karunesh Singh,Kaushal Tiwari,Nalin Arora,Prashant Dubey,Vijay Pratap Singh

¶5

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Jagendra,Ram Kinkar Upadhyay

¶6

Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA, learned counsel for the complainant and perused the record.

¶8

The accused-applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No.305 of 2022 under sections 363, 366, 342, 376, 354, 354-D, 323, 504, 506, 509 IPC, section 3/4 and 7/8 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and Section 3 (2) (v) S.C.S.T. Act, P.S. Kotwali Ayodhya, District Faizabad/Ayodhya.

¶9

It has been argued that initially the first information report was lodged against him under section 363, 366 IPC and Section 16/17 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and Section 3 (2) (v) (a) S.C.S.T. Act. In the offences in question, it was alleged that on 12.05.2022, the minor daughter of the informer, aged about 17 years, was enticed away by the applicant. In the statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. (annexure No.3), the victim stated her age to be of 17 years. It is also stated that she knew the applicant for a period of one year. It was alleged that on 08.04.2022, the applicant went her village and asked her to sit in the car and both of them went to Delhi where the mobile was switched off. It was also stated that after some time, the mother of the victim had called the applicant and asked them to come back and on her saying they came back on 12.04.2022 and a compromise was made that the applicant would divorce his wife and would marry the victim. There was nothing available with regard to the offence under Section 376 IPC. Subsequently, the statement of the victim was recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. wherein for the first time she made allegation with regard to the offence under Section 376 IPC. Learned counsel for the applicant argues that prior to this case also there was a complaint made against the applicant

¶10

under Section 363 and 366 IPC which was withdrawn by the complainant and an affidavit was filed which is on record. He argues that the radiological age of the victim is about 20 years. In sum and substance, the argument is that the victim had gone with her own free consent and the applicant is being falsely implicated in the case. He next argues that the charges in the case was framed on 09.11.2022, however the statement of the victim has not been recorded which is required to be done under relevant section within a period of one month. He further argues that the applicant has no criminal antecedents and is in custody since 19.09.2022. The trial has not even started and there is no likelihood of trial being concluded in the near future.

¶11

Learned A.G.A. for the State opposed the bail application by arguing that the applicant was a married man and was well aware that the marriage could not be solemnized and despite that he enticed away the victim. She further argues that as per the school record, the date of birth of the victim is 24.09.2004 and thus on the date of incident, the age of victim was about seventeen years and ten months. She further argues that the medical report is still awaited and prays that the bail application be rejected.

¶12

Learned counsel for the complainant agrees with the argument of the learned A.G.A. for the State and opposes the bail application and prays that the bail application be rejected.

¶13

Considering the statements made at the bar, huge differences in the statements given under sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. which demonstrates that the victim had gone out of her own free will coupled with the fact that the medical report is still awaited. The applicant is in jail since 09.11.2022 and has no criminal antecedents. Thus, the present application is allowed.

¶14

Let the applicant Rishabh Srivastava be released on bail in aforesaid first information report number subject to his furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court below concerned with the following conditions:

¶15

(a) The applicant shall execute a bond to undertake to attend the hearings;

¶16

(b) The applicant shall not commit any offence similar to the offence of which he is accused or suspected of the commission; and

¶17

(c) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the

¶18

facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶19

Order Date :- 12.7.2023 Raj

¶20

Digitally signed by :- RAJ NIGAM High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Rishabh Srivastava v. State of U.P. Thru. the Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Civil Lko. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rishabh Srivastava v. State of U.P. Thru. the Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Civil 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

Furkan Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin.Secy. Home and 3 Others

Mohit Mishra Vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko.

Sahul Saroj Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko.

Umesh Dikshit vs Smt. Indra Agnihotri and 5 Others

Jai Prakash Gupta Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Lko. and 3 Others

Saidu Khan Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Govt. Lko. and 3 Others