Allowed

Lokesh Kumar Alias Lokendra v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC23 May 2023BAIL/19356/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a bail application under CrPC regarding Ss. 363, 366, 376 IPC and POCSO Act, the court granted bail considering discrepancies in the victim's age and a shift in allegations between initial and final statements, without expressing an opinion on case merits.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail on personal bond and two sureties subject to conditions.

Lokesh Kumar Alias Lokendra Vs State of U.P… — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:114144

¶2

Court No. - 74

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 19356 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Lokesh Kumar Alias Lokendra Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Harish Chandra Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Sameer Jain,J.

¶6

Sri Varun Kumar Agnihotri, learned Brief Holder apprised the Court that on 5.5.2023, notice has been sent to the informant. Despite service of notice none appeared on behalf of the informant.

¶7

Heard Sri Harish Chandra Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Varun Kumar Agnihotri, learned AGA for the State-respondent.

¶8

The instant application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 173 of 2022, under Sections 363, 366, 376, 323 IPC & 3/4 POCSO Act, Police Station Garotha, District Jhansi, during pendency of the trial in the court below.

¶9

FIR of the present case was lodged against the applicant under section 363 IPC and according to the FIR, applicant enticed away the minor daughter of the informant aged about 16 years and it is further mentioned in the FIR that at the time of leaving her home, victim has taken some silver ornaments and golden mangalsutra alongwith Rs. 45,000/-.

¶10

Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that entire allegations made against the applicant are totally false and baseless and applicant neither enticed nor ever committed rape with the victim. He further submitted that victim is a major girl aged about 18 years and she according to her own wish had gone alongwith applicant due to the bad behaviour of her parents and this fact is evident from the statement of the victim recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C.

¶11

He further submitted that in her statement recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C. victim did not make any allegation against the

¶12

applicant but when her statement under section 164 Cr.P.C. was recorded then she although stated that she had gone alongwith the applicant but further stated that applicant harassed her and also committed rape with her and this fact clearly suggests that on the instigation of the parents victim subsequently started making allegation of rape against the applicant.

¶13

He further submitted that as per statement of the victim recorded under section 164 Cr.P.C. she is 18 years old and she never attained any school 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 statement recorded under section 164 Cr.P.C. made allegation of rape against the applicant and further submitted that during investigation, Investigating Officer procured her school records and according to the school records her date of birth is 22nd October, 2006 and according to her school record, she is around 16 years of age but could not dispute the fact that victim in her statement recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C. did not make any allegation against the applicant and categorically stated that due to bad behaviour of her parents, left her paternal home and in the statement recorded under section 164 Cr.P.C., she stated that she never attended any school.

¶15

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

¶16

Although there is some dispute with regard to the age of the victim as in the statement recorded under section 164 Cr.P.C., victim disclosed her age 18 years and also stated that she never attended any school but as per the learned AGA her date of birth according to the school record is 22.10.2006 and she is around 16 years of age but even as per school record, she is more than 16 years of age and further in her statement recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C. victim did not make any allegation against the applicant and categorically stated against her parents and subsequently when her statement under section 164 Cr.P.C. was recorded then she made allegation of rape against the applicant. Although she also admitted the fact that she had gone alongwith the applicant according to her own wish.

¶17

Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, discussed 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- Lokesh Kumar Alias Lokendra, 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 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.

¶25

Order Date :- 23.5.2023

¶26

Ankita

¶27

Digitally signed by :- ANKITA SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Lokesh Kumar Alias Lokendra v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Lokesh Kumar Alias Lokendra 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

Shanker Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Shah Alam @ Gamgam Vs State of U.P.

Pradeep Jain Vs State of U.P.

Sameer Vs State of U.P.

Sandeep Kumar Nishad Vs State of U.P.

Munna Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others