Allowed

Smt. Meena v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC21 Apr 2023BAIL/12786/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court granted bail to Smt. Meena in a POCSO case where the victim named her in the Section 161 statement but did not disclose her name in the Section 164 statement. The Court observed the discrepancy, noted her lack of criminal history, and ordered her release on bail with conditional bonds.

What did the court decide?

Release on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount with conditions against tampering, inducement, and anti-social activity.

Smt. Meena Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Court No. - 74

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 12786 of 2023

¶3

Applicant :- Smt. Meena Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Ajay Kumar Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Sameer Jain,J.

¶5

Sri Amit Kumar Shukla, learned Brief Holder for the State apprised the Court that on 23.03.2023 notice has been served upon the informant. Despite service of notice none appeared on behalf of the informant.

¶6

Heard Sri Ajay Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Amit Kumar Shukla, learned Brief Holder for the State.

¶7

The instant bail application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 81 of 2023, under Sections 376/34, 120B IPC and Section 16/17 read with Section 3/4 POCSO Act and Sections 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 of Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, Police Station Tajganj, District Agra during pendency of the trial.

¶8

FIR of the present case was lodged under Sections 376D IPC and 3/4 POCSO Act against unknown persons and according to the FIR on 26.01.2023, the minor daughter of the informant aged about 16 years went somewhere and thereafter on 30.01.2023 informant received an information that her daughter has been recovered and when he arrived at Child Welfare Committee office then her daughter informed him that some persons committed rape with her.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that complicity of the applicant was revealed through the statement of victim recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and although in her statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. victim made serious allegation against her and stated that applicant thrown her in prostitution and on her instigation number of persons committed rape with her but when the statement of victim was recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. then she did not even disclose the name of applicant and this fact clearly suggests that applicant has been made accused in

¶10

the present matter on the instigation of the police. Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that prime accused in the present matter appears to be one Mulla and actually applicant was found sitting along with Mulla, therefore, police implicated the applicant in the present matter through the statement of victim recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. but when the statement of victim was recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. then she narrated the correct story before the Magistrate, therefore, considering the statement of victim recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. applicant may be enlarged on bail.

¶11

Per contra, learned AGA opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that victim in her statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. clearly stated that applicant thrown her in prostitution but could not dispute the fact that when statement of victim was recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. then she did not even disclose the name of applicant.

¶12

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case.

¶13

Although, victim in her statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. made serious allegation against the applicant that applicant thrown her in prostitution but when her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. was recorded then she although slightly changed her version but substratum of the allegation is the same but she did not disclose the name of applicant.

¶14

Therefore, considering the fact that name of applicant was not disclosed by the victim in her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. and applicant is lady and she is not having any previous criminal history, in my view, applicant is entitled to be released on bail.

¶15

Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the instant bail application is allowed .

¶16

Let the applicant - Smt. Meena be released on bail in the aforesaid case on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:-

¶17

(i) The applicant shall appear before the trial court on the dates fixed, unless his personal presence is exempted.

¶18

(ii) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly, make inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the

¶19

case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶20

(iii) The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal and anti-social activity.

¶21

In case of breach of any of the above condition, the prosecution will be at liberty to move an application before this Court for cancellation of the bail of the applicant.

¶22

Order Date :- 21.4.2023 AK Pandey

¶23

Digitally signed by :- ANUPAM KUMAR PANDEY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Smt. Meena v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Meena v. State of U.P. 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

Arjun and 2 Others Vs State of U.P.

Sonu Bhartiya Vs State of U.P.

Smt Lalita Vs State of U.P.

Arun Vs State of U.P.

Sanjay Kumar Vs State of U.P.

Smt Suneeta Devi Vs State of U.P.