Allowed

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

Allahabad HC19 Apr 2023/860/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court judge allowed bail to the applicant in a case involving offences under IPC 376D (gang rape) and POCSO. The court noted the absence of injury marks, exonerated co-accused, and victim's attempt to flee police, favoring bail with standard conditions.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail with two sureties and conditions against tampering with evidence and appearing in court.

Balram 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. - 860 of 2023

¶3

Applicant :- Balram Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Amit Kumar Awasthi,Anand Kumar Shukla Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Shubham Shukla, holding brief of Sri Amit Kumar Awasthi, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Manish Kumar Pandey, 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. 82 of 2021, under Sections 363, 366, 376D, 344, 328 IPC & 3(2)5 SC./ST Act & 5(g)/6 POCSO Act, Police Station Dhaurahra, District Kheri.

¶7

The aforesaid case has been registered on the basis of an FIR lodged on 18.03.2021 stating that the informant's minor daughter had gone away at about 10.00 am on 14.03.2021 and she could not be traced. The FIR states that one Mayawati daughter of Ayodhya Gautam used to take away her daughter daily and she used to spend time with her and she used to make her talk to other persons on mobile phone.

¶8

The police claimed to have recovered the victim from a public place, while she was with the applicant and the recovery memo states that upon seeing the police, the informant's daughter also tried to ran away.

¶9

In her statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., the victim stated that the village pradhan Vijendra and Sanjay had forcibly taken her to Lakhimpur Kheri and they got her married

¶10

to the applicant in a temple at Lakhimpur and thereafter she started living with the applicant as his wife. In the medico legal examination of the victim, no mark of injury has been reported on any part of her body.

¶11

In the statement of the applicant recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., he stated that he loves the victim for the past six months, the victim told him that her mother used to beat her and she asked him to take her with him otherwise she would commit suicide. Thereupon, the applicant took her away to Lalkuwan (Uttrakhand) and started living with the victim. In the statement of the victim recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. also, she categorically stated that Sanjay and Vijendra had abducted her and both of them had raped her and thereafter they handed her over to the applicant.

¶12

The State has filed a counter affidavit annexing therewith the material collected during investigation and the Investigating Officer has recorded in the case diary that the other persons named by the victim, namely, Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal and Vijendra Kumar Jaiswal, are being falsely implicated by her.

¶13

Having considered the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view the fact that the recovery memo specifically states that the victim tried to run away upon seeing the police persons, who had recovered her and she tried to go with the applicant; that the victim had categorically stated that two other persons had abducted her and handed her over to the applicant and the police had exonerated those two persons named by the victim and that no mark of injury or sign of use of force has been reported in the medico legal examination report of the victim, coupled with the fact that the applicant has no previous criminal history and he is languishing in jail since 06.06.2021, I am of the view that the applicant is entitled to be

¶14

released on bail.

¶15

Accordingly, this bail application is allowed .

¶16

Let the applicant Balram be released on bail in Case Crime No. 82 of 2021, under Sections 363, 366, 376D, 344, 328 IPC & 3(2)5 SC./ST Act & 5(g)/6 POCSO Act, Police Station Dhaurahra, District Kheri on furnishing a bail bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of magistrate/court concerned, subject to following conditions:-

¶17

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

¶18

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

¶19

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

¶20

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

¶21

Order Date :- 19.4.2023 Pradeep/-

¶22

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

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Balram 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

Abhinav Pal Alias Nanoo and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home U.P. Lko.

Ram Prasad (Third Bail) Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home. Lko

Usman Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy., Lko.

Mohd. Furkaan Vs State of U.P. Thru.Prin.Secy. Home Deptt.

Pawan Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko. and Others

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