Allowed

Durgesh v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC10 May 2023BAIL/17487/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a bail application regarding offenses under IPC and POCSO, wherein the victim alleged enticement away of a minor, the court observed that radiological and educational records suggested the victim was likely over 17. Noting the victim's statements indicating voluntary departure and marriage, the court released the applicant on bail with conditions, clarifying no opinion was passed on the case me

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail on personal bond and two sureties with conditions to appear, not tamper with evidence, and avoid criminal activity.

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

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:101640

¶2

Court No. - 74

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 17487 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Durgesh Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Brijesh Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Abida Syed

¶5

Hon'ble Sameer Jain,J.

¶6

Sri Varun Kumar Agnihotri, learned brief holder for the State apprised this Court that on 6.5.2023 notice has been served upon informant but despite service of notice none appeared on behalf of informant.

¶7

Heard Sri Brijesh Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for applicant, Miss. Abida Syed, learned counsel appearing for the High Court Legal Services and Sri Varun Kumar Agnihotri, learned brief holder for the State.

¶8

The instant application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 96 of 2022, under Sections 363, 366 and 376 IPC and Section 5J(ii)/6 POCSO Act, Police Station Sadabad, District Hathras, during pendency of the trial in the court below.

¶9

F.I.R. of the present case was lodged against applicant under section 363 IPC and according to the F.I.R. applicant enticed away the minor daughter of the informant aged about 15 years.

¶10

Learned counsel for applicant submits entire allegation made against applicant is totally false and baseless and actually daughter of the informant had gone along with applicant according to her own wish and after performing marriage both started living as husband and wife and with the wedlock of applicant she also begot a child.

¶11

He further submits according to the C.M.O. the radiological age of the victim is about 18 years and even as per her educational certificate she is more than 17 years of age.

¶12

He further submits in her both the statements recorded under

¶13

Sections 161 Cr.P.C. and 164 Cr.P.C. victim categorically stated that there is no fault of applicant and she according to her own wish had gone along with him.

¶14

Per contra, learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel appearing for the High Court Legal Services although opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the argument on facts advanced by learned counsel for applicant.

¶15

I have heard both the parties and perused the record of the case.

¶16

From perusal of record it reflects that the radiological age of the victim is about 18 years and even as per her educational certificate she is more than 17 years old and in her both the statements recorded under Sections 161 Cr.P.C. and 164 Cr.P.C. she categorically stated that she according to her own wish had gone with applicant and with the wedlock of applicant a child also born to her and she did not make any accusation against applicant in her both the statements.

¶17

Therefore, on the discussions made above, in my view applicant is entitled to be released on bail.

¶18

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

¶19

Let the applicant Durgesh 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:-

¶20

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

¶21

(ii) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly, make inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶22

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

¶23

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.

¶24

It is clarified that the observations made herein are limited to

¶25

the facts brought in by the parties pertaining to the disposal of bail application and the said observations shall have no bearing on the merits of the case during trial.

¶26

Order Date :- 10.5.2023

¶27

Kumar Manish.

¶28

Digitally signed by :- MANISH TRIPATHI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Durgesh v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Durgesh 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

Manisha Vs State of U.P.

Anil Singh Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Mahfooz Vs State of U.P.

Faheem Khan Vs State of U.P.

Deepchand Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Matelu Chaudhary Vs State of U.P.