Allowed

Guddu Yadav v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC16 May 2023BAIL/18089/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a bail application for Guddu Yadav accused under IPC 363, 366, 376(3) and POCSO. The court held that inconsistent evidence regarding the victim's age and her apparent consent suggest the prosecution failed to prove enticement, and POCSO does not criminalize adolescent love.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties with conditions to appear in court, not tamper with evidence, and abstain from criminal activity.

Guddu Yadav Vs State of U.P. and Another — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:106267

¶2

Court No. - 74

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 18089 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Guddu Yadav Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Sanjay Singh,Shivam Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Shailendra Kumar Rai

¶5

Hon'ble Sameer Jain,J.

¶6

Heard Sri Sanjay Singh learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Pankaj Dwivedi, Advocate, holding brief of Sri Shailendra Kumar Rai, learned counsel for the informant and Dr. S.B. Maurya learned A.G.A.-Ist for the State.

¶7

The instant application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 268 of 2022, under Sections 363, 366, 376(3) IPC and Section 5M/6 POCSO Act, Police Station Mohammadabad, District Ghazipur, during pendency of the trial in the court below.

¶8

F.I.R. of the present case was lodged against applicant and one another under Sections 363 and 366 IPC and according to the F.I.R. applicant enticed away the minor daughter of the informant aged about 11 years with the help of co-accused Priyanshu Yadav.

¶9

Learned counsel for applicant submits entire allegation made against applicant is totally false and baseless and applicant has not enticed the daughter of informant.

¶10

He further submits applicant is hardly 19 years old boy and victim is also around 16 to 17 years old girl and both loved each other and according to her own wish victim had gone along with applicant and this fact is evident from her both the statements recorded under Sections 161 Cr.P.C. and 164 Cr.P.C.

¶11

He further submits although according to school record victim is around 11 years of age while her supplementary report shows that her elbow epiphysis were fused and, therefore, it appears that she is about 17 years old girl.

¶12

He further submits as victim in her both the statements did not

¶13

make any accusation against applicant and applicant is also a young boy, therefore, he may be released on bail.

¶14

Per contra, learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for the informant opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that from the school record it appears that victim is hardly 11 years old girl and even there is no report of C.M.O. with regard to her radiological age, therefore, merely on the basis of the fusion of elbow epiphysis it cannot be said that she is more than 16 years old girl.

¶15

Learned counsel for the informant further submitted that even as per supplementary report victim is below 18 years of age, therefore, applicant should not be released on bail.

¶16

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

¶17

Although from the school record the age of the victim appears to be 11 years but she in her both the statements recorded under Sections 161 Cr.P.C. and 164 Cr.P.C. stated that she had gone along with applicant according to her own wish and also made physical relationship with him. Therefore, it appears that informant did not disclose the correct age of the victim in her educational record as it is hard to believe that a girl aged about 11 years would indulge in physical relationship with applicant.

¶18

Further, from the supplementary report of the victim it appears that her elbow epiphysis were fused, therefore, it appears that she might be around 15 years of age although she is still below 18 years of age but applicant is also young boy aged about 19 years and victim did not make any accusation against him, rather she categorically favoured him and stated that she according to her own wish had gone with him and she developed physical relationship with him.

¶19

The provision of POCSO Act does mean to criminalize the adolescent love. Further, bail application can neither be refused for punitive purposes nor preventive purposes.

¶20

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

¶21

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

¶22

Let the applicant- Guddu Yadav be released on bail in the

¶23

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:-

¶24

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

¶25

(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.

¶26

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

¶27

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.

¶28

It is clarified that the observations made herein are limited to 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.

¶29

Order Date :- 16.5.2023

¶30

Kumar Manish.

¶31

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

Guddu Yadav v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Guddu Yadav v. State of U.P. and Another

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

Chhotu Trivedi @ Ashutosh Vs State of U.P.

Bihari Soni@ Prince Vs State of U.P.

Mayank Vs State of U.P.

Madhusudan Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Arjun Nishad Vs State of U.P.

Ashish Kumar Kushwaha @ Pintu Vs State of U.P.