Allowed

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

Allahabad HC24 May 2023/89/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A bench of the Allahabad High Court allowed a bail application filed by Ajay Gautam in a POCSO and IPC case involving allegations of enticement and rape. Relying on the victim's consistent statements regarding her age and voluntary marriage, the court granted bail with conditions and directed the trial court to recover compensation paid to the hostile witness.

What did the court decide?

Bail allowed by furnishing a personal bond and two sureties; direction to trial court to recover compensation from the hostile witness.

Ajay Gautam Alias Ajay Vs State of U.P… — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC-LKO:37000

¶2

Court No. - 16

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 89 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Ajay Gautam Alias Ajay Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Ram Pheran Dwivedi,Anupam Dwivedi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,J.

¶6

Heard Sri Ram Pheran Dwivedi, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Amit Kumar Dwivedi, learned Addl. Government Advocate, and perused the record.

¶7

By means of the instant application the applicant Ajay Gautam alias Ajay seeks bail in Case Crime No. 0392 of 2021, under sections 363, 366, 376(3), I.P.C., and section 3/4, Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012, P.S. Kotwali Bhinga, District Shrawasti.

¶8

The aforesaid case has been registered on the basis of a First Information Report (F.I.R.) lodged on 31.10.2021alleging that the three named accused persons, including the applicant had enticed away the informant's daughter, aged about 15 years.

¶9

In the statement of the victim recorded under section 161, Cr.P.C. she stated that she is aged about 19 years; that she had gone alone to Gujrat and she met the applicant there, whom he knows for the past two years and she married the applicant on 20.10.2021 in Gujrat. A similar statement has also been given by the applicant before the Magistrate also.

¶10

In the medico-legal examination of the victim also the her age has been opined to be 19 years.

¶11

In the affidavit filed in support of the 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.

¶12

Learned A.G.A. states that notice to the present informant has been served upon his counsel, but nobody is present to oppose the bail-application on behalf her behalf

¶13

Keeping in view the aforesaid consistent statement of the victim that she is major as per her own statement and as per her medico-legal examination report and as per her own statement that she has married the applicant out of her own freewill, 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.

¶14

Accordingly, this bail application stands allowed .

¶15

Let the applicant Ajay Gautam alias Ajay be released on bail in the aforesaid Case Crime No. 0392 of 2021, under sections 363, 366, 376(3), I.P.C., and section 3/4, Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012, P.S. Kotwali Bhinga, District Shrawasti, 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:-

¶16

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

¶17

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

¶18

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

¶19

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

¶20

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:-

¶21

"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.

¶22

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.

¶23

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.

¶24

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

¶25

In the present case also the victim/ informant levelled an allegation of rape but subsequently she turned hostile and said that the alleged offence did not take place.

¶26

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

¶27

( Subhash Vidyarthi, J. )

¶28

Order Date :- 24.5.2023 A.Nigam

¶29

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

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ajay Gautam Alias Ajay 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

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

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

Brij Kumar @ Bhullu Vs State of U.P. through Principal Secretary, Home Deptt., Lucknow

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

Shahnawaz Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin.Secy. Home Deptt. Lko and Others