Allowed

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

Allahabad HC26 May 2023BAIL/18939/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This bail application was filed by Monis against the State of U.P. in a case involving alleged rape and abduction of a minor. The High Court, noting the age similarity and conflicting statements regarding consent, allowed bail without expressing an opinion on the merits of the criminal allegations.

What did the court decide?

Application allowed. Applicant released on bail by personal bond and two sureties.

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

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:118686

¶2

Court No. - 74

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 18939 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Monis Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Dileep Kumar Shukla,Mohit Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Sameer Jain,J.

¶6

Sri Ghanshyam Mishra, learned brief holder apprised the court on 19.04.2023 notice has been served to the informant. Despite service of notice, none appeared on behalf of informant.

¶7

Heard, Shri Mohit Singh, Leared counsel for the applicant and Shri Ghanshyam Mishra, learned brief holder for the State.

¶8

The instant application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 652 of 2022, under Sections 363, 366, 376D I.P.C., Section 5/6 POCSO Act and Section 3(2)5 SC/ST Act, Police Station Bahjoi, District Sambhal, during pendency of the trial in the court below.

¶9

FIR of the present case was lodged on 8.12.2022 against applicant and others and according to the FIR applicant and other accused persons abducted the victim aged about 17 years.

¶10

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that entire allegations made against the applicant are totally false and baseless and applicant neither enticed nor abducted the victim and actually the victim of the case is a major girl and she by her own wish had gone with the applicant but when she was recovered, then under the pressure of her family members, she started making allegations of rape against applicant.

¶11

He further submits that from the statement of victim recorded u/s 161 Cr.P.C. it appears that she is around 17 ½ years old and she had gone alongwith the applicant and although she stated that applicant made physical relationship with her but from her

¶12

statement it reflects that she was a consenting party. Although in her statement u/s 164 Cr.P.C. she changed her version and stated that applicant and other co-accused persons committed rape with her and this fact clearly suggests that victim under the pressure of informant and her family members made allegations of rape against the applicant and others in her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C.

¶13

He further submits that applicant is 19 years old and victim is around 18 years old and both are of similar age group and they loved each other but belong to different community, therefore, their family members were not ready to accept their relationship and after recovery under their pressure victim started making allegations against the applicant and therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, applicant may be enlarged on bail

¶14

Per contra, learned AGA opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that victim in her both the statements recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and 164 Cr.P.C. made allegation of rape against the applicant but could not dispute the fact that even as per the school record, victim is around 17 ½ years and her ossification test was not conducted during the investigation and she changed her entire version in her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. and started making allegations of gang rape against applicant and two others.

¶15

I have heard learned both the parties and perused the record of the case. Although victims in her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. made serious allegations of gang rape against the applicant and two others and also stated that they have abducted her but no such allegation was made by her in her earlier statement recorded u/s 161 Cr.P.C. Although in her statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C., she made allegation that applicant made physical relationship with her. Further applicant is 19 years old and even from the school record of the victim, it appears that she is also around 18 years of age.

¶16

Therefore, from the record it appears that it is a case of teenage love but as both applicant and victim belong to different community, therefore argument advanced by the learned counsel for applicant that after recovery of the victim on the instigation of

¶17

her family members, she started making allegation against the applicant cannot be totally brushed aside at this stage.

¶18

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

¶19

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

¶20

Let the applicant Monis 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:-

¶21

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

¶22

(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.

¶23

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

¶24

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.

¶25

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.

¶26

Order Date :- 26.5.2023

¶27

Aiman

¶28

Digitally signed by :- AIMAN FAROOQUI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Monis 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

Ramdas @ Bhagat Vs State of U.P.

Dharmendra Kumar Sonkar Vs State of U.P.

Arun Kumar Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Deepak Nishad Vs State of U.P.

Sukhlal Vs State of U.P.

Rajeev Gupta Vs State of U.P.