Allowed

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

Allahabad HC28 Mar 2023/487/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court allowed a bail application under IPC and POCSO Act provisions, granting relief based on the insufficiency of medical and forensic evidence to substantiate the accused's enticement charges after verifying his criminal record and time in custody.

What did the court decide?

Release on bail via personal bond and two sureties with conditions against tampering with evidence and ensuring attendance in court.

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

¶1

Court No. - 16

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 487 of 2023

¶3

Applicant :- Noor Alam

¶4

Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And 3 Others

¶5

Counsel for Applicant :- Manoj Kumar Gupta Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶6

Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,J.

¶7

Heard Sri Manoj Kumar Gupta, learned counsel for the applicant, and Sri Jayant Singh Tomar, learned Addl. Government Advocate-I.

¶8

By means of the instant application the applicant Noor Alam S/o Ali Ahmad seeks bail in Case Crime No. 0531 of 2021, under sections 363, 366, 376, IPC and section 5/6, Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, P.S. Madiyaon, District Lucknow.

¶9

The aforesaid case has been registered on the basis of a first information report (F.I.R.) lodged on 22nd of November 2021 alleging that the applicant has enticed away the informant's minor daughter.

¶10

In the statement of the alleged victim recorded under section 161, CrPC she stated that she loves the applicant, she had gone with him, both of them lived together as husband and wife and made physical relations and that she understands the meaning of physical relations, however, in the medico-legal examination report the doctor has recorded that even as per the victim, no penetration was done and the hymen has been reported to be intact. No injury has been reported on any part of the victim's body.

¶11

In the supplementary medico legal report it has been opined that on the basis of clinical, pathological and radiological reports there are no signs of use of force and in the report submitted by Forensic Science Laboratory it has been stated that no spermatozoa or semen was found on any of the samples.

¶12

Having considered facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view the facts that the allegations are not supported by the medical examination report, pathological report and F.S.L. report, coupled with the fact that the applicant has no criminal history and he is languishing in jail since 22nd of June 2022, 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 Noor Alam S/o Ali Ahmad be released on bail in the aforesaid Case Crime No. 0531 of 2021, under sections 363, 366, 376, IPC and section 5/6, Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, P.S. Madiyaon, District Lucknow, 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

¶19

prosecution shall be at liberty to move bail cancellation application before this Court.

¶20

( Subhash Vidyarthi, J. )

¶21

Order Date :- 28.3.2023 A.Nigam

¶22

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

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Noor Alam 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

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.

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