Allowed

Patwari v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC25 May 2023/454/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

After observing that the prosecutrix claimed she married the applicant out of free will and was aged 18-20, the Apollo High Court allowed the applicant's bail. The Court directed the trial court to follow its earlier order in Hariom Sharma regarding recovering government compensation from a hostile prosecutrix.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail with personal bond and two sureties.

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

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC-LKO:37478

¶2

Court No. - 16 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 454 of 2023 Applicant :- Patwari Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Rahul Agnihotri Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶3

Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,J.

¶4

Heard Sri Rahul Agnihorti, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Hari Shankar Maurya, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the records.

¶5

The instant application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 484 of 2022, under Sections 363, 366, 376, 323, 504, 506, 419, 420 IPC & 5/6 POCSO Act, Police Station Isanagar, District Lakhimpur Kheri.

¶6

The aforesaid case has been registered on the basis of an F.I.R. lodged on 18.09.2022 alleging that the applicant had enticed away the informant's minor sister aged about 15 years on 03.09.2022.

¶7

In the statement of the victim recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., she has stated that she is aged about 19 years and, she has married the applicant out of her own free will and she wants to live with him.

¶8

In the radiological examination report, the age of the victim has been opined to be 18-20 years.

¶9

The victim gave similar statement before the Magistrate also.

¶10

In the affidavit filed in support of bail application it has been stated that the applicant is innocent, he has been falsely implicated in the present case and he has no criminal history.

¶11

The learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail but he could not dispute the aforesaid aspects of the matter.

¶12

Having considered the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view the fact that the victim has married the applicant, she has consistently stated that she has married the applicant out of her own free will and also that the applicant is young man aged about 22 years having no criminal history and he is languishing in jail since 02.10.2022 and 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 in

¶13

the aforesaid crime.

¶14

Accordingly, this bail application stands allowed .

¶15

Let the applicant- Patwari be released on bail in Case Crime No. 484 of 2022, under Sections 363, 366, 376, 323, 504, 506, 419, 420 IPC & 5/6 POCSO Act, Police Station Isanagar, District Lakhimpur Kheri on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of magistrate/court concerned.

¶16

Before parting with this case, it is observed that in Hariom Sharma v. State of U.P., 2022 (120) ACC 251 , a coordinate Bench of this Court had held as under:-

¶17

"10......Neither accused nor victim or any witnesses should be permitted to subvert a criminal trial by stating falsehood and resort to contrivances, so as to make it theatre of the absurd. Dispensation of justice in a criminal trial is a serious issue and cannot be allowed to become a mockery by simply allowing prime prosecution witnesses /victims to turn hostile as a ground of acquittal. Complainants should also be accountable and should take responsibility on their shoulder.

¶18

11. Considering the societal interest, it is high time for the trial court to resort to Section 344 Cr.P.C in appropriate cases. In the present case since the prosecutrix before the trial Court has turned hostile and completely denied the prosecution version, therefore she is not entitled to the benefit of any compensation paid by the Government, which has been collected from the taxpayers of the country.

¶19

12. In view of the above trial Court shall consider the issuance of necessary direction against the alleged prosecutrix/ victim to refund the amount of compensation, if any received by her, in the appropriate head of the treasury account and shall also ensure the compliance of provisions of section 344 Cr.P.C at the appropriate stage, if it deems fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case.

¶20

13-Office is directed to transmit a copy of this order to the court concerned within a week for compliance."

¶21

Although allegation of rape was levelled against the applicant, the same has not been supported by the victim before the Investigating Officer and the Magistrate.

¶22

The trial court is directed to take action as per the aforesaid direction issued by this Court, in present matter also.

¶23

Order Date :- 25.5.2023 Pradeep/-

¶24

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

Patwari v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Patwari v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home 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

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ajay Gautam Alias Ajay Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 3 Others

Ajay Kumar Vs State of U.P. and 3 Ors.

Mangal Deep Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and Others

Mailuddin @ Moinuddin Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko. and Others

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

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