Allowed

Kesar Baksh v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt., Lko. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC28 Mar 2023/256/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the bail application of an accused charged with enticement and sexual offences under IPC and PoCSO. The court noted the victim's statement regarding a marital relationship and their refusal of medical examination, finding facts sufficient for bail without prejudging the merits.

What did the court decide?

Response allowed bailing in personal bond and two sureties, each in like amount, under standard conditions of not tampering with evidence or pressuring witnesses.

Kesar Baksh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin… — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Court No. - 16

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 256 of 2023

¶3

Applicant :- Kesar Baksh

¶4

Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt., Lko. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Km. Akhilesh Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,J.

¶6

Heard Km. Akhilesh Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, and Sri Amit Kumar Dwivedi, learned Addl. Government Advocate.

¶7

By means of the instant application the applicant Kesar Bux S/o late Maniram seeks bail in Case Crime No. 0060 of 2022, under sections 363, 366, 376 IPC and section 3/4 Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, P.S. Kothi, District Barabanki.

¶8

The aforesaid case has been registered on the basis of a first information report lodged on 14th of February 2022 alleging that the applicant had enticed away the minor daughter of the informant.

¶9

In the statement of the alleged victim recorded under section 161 CrPC she has stated that she was in love with the applicant for the past 1 year. The applicant is real brother of the her bhabhi and as her family members did not agree for the marriage, she had gone with the applicant to Gujarat and that she has married him and is living with him as his wife. She categorically stated that she wants to live with her husband only.

¶10

In her statement recorded under section 164, CrPC the victim

¶11

further stated that she had asked the applicant to take her with him, otherwise she would not live. The victim denied to undergo the medico-legal examination.

¶12

Having considered the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, and keeping in view the statements of victim, without making any observation, which may affect the merits of the case, I am of the view that the aforesaid facts are sufficient for making out a case for enlargement of the applicant on bail.

¶13

Accordingly, this bail application stands allowed .

¶14

Let the applicant Kesar Bux S/o late Maniram be released on bail in the aforesaid Case Crime No. 0060 of 2022, under sections 363, 366, 376 IPC and section 3/4 Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, P.S. Kothi, District Barabanki, on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of Magistrate/Court concerned, subject to following conditions:-

¶15

(i) the applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence;

¶16

(ii) the applicant shall not pressurize the prosecution witnesses;

¶17

(iii) the applicant shall appear on each and every date fixed by the trial court.

¶18

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

¶19

( Subhash Vidyarthi, J. )

¶20

Order Date :- 28.3.2023 A.Nigam

¶21

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

Kesar Baksh v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt., Lko. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kesar Baksh v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt., 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

Abhay Kumar Shukla Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Dept. of Home Civil Sect. Lko

Abdul Rahman Vs the State of U.P. Thru.Deptt.of Home Lko. and 3 Others

Shyamu @ Lala Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Noor Alam Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 3 Others

Sonu @ Sameer Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko.

Bahadur @ Sidharath Vs State of U.P. Thru. the Secy. Home Deptt., Lko.