Allowed

Mehtab Ansari v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC30 May 2023BAIL/19392/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a bail application in a crime involving sections 363, 366, 376 IPC, and POCSO Act, the High Court allowed bail. The court noted the victim's radiological age was 18 and her statement suggested consent rather than rape, granting bail with standard conditions.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties subject to conditions of surrender, non-inducement, and refraining from criminal activity.

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

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:120522

¶2

Court No. - 75

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 19392 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Mehtab Ansari Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Sugendra Kumar Yadav,Anand Prakash Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Singh,J.

¶6

1- Despite service of notice upon opposite party no.2/informant and opposite party no.4/Child Welfare Committee, Deoria, no one has put in appearance on their behalf.

¶7

2- Heard learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned Additional Government Advocate representing the State.

¶8

3- The instant bail application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. has been filed on behalf of the applicant with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No. 30 of 2023, under Sections 363, 366, 376, 506 of I.P.C. and Section 3/4 POCSO Act, Police Station-Tarkulwa, District-Deoria, during the pendency of trial.

¶9

4- As per the prosecution case in brief, the informant who is mother of the victim lodged F.I.R. on 14.02.2023 against the applicant alleging inter-alia that on 02.02.2023 at about 10:00 am her daughter had gone to farm but she did not return till late evening. Later on, she came to know that her daughter has been enticed away by the applicant.

¶10

5- It is argued by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant has been falsely implicated in this case. F.I.R. was lodged after a delay of twelve days. Though, in the F.I.R. it is alleged that the victim is minor, but as per her ossification rest report, she is aged about eighteen years. The victim was recovered on 15.02.2023, thereafter, her statements under Section 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. were recorded, in which she has stated inter-alia that she was in touch with the applicant since last four years and they

¶11

used to talk with each other but her mother and brothers used to beat her on account of her acquaintance with the applicant, therefore, on 16.12.2022 she had left her house and thereafter, she had gone to Pune along with applicant, where they solemnized their marriage and started living together taking a room on rent. It is pointed out that though the victim was missing since 16.12.2022 but in the F.I.R. the date of incident has been wrongly shown by the mother of the victim on 02.02.2023. It is also pointed out that victim has refused for her internal medical examination and it is not the case of rape but it is the case of consensual relation between the parties concerned. Lastly, it is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that there is no chance of the applicant of fleeing away from the judicial process or tampering with the prosecution evidence. The applicant is languishing in jail since 19.02.2023 having no criminal history to his credit and in case he is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate in the early disposal of the case.

¶12

6- Per contra, learned A.G.A. for the State opposed the prayer for bail of the applicant but could not dispute the above factual aspect of the matter as argued on behalf of the applicant.

¶13

7- Having heard learned counsel for the parties and examined the matter in its entirety, I find that radiological age of the victim is about eighteen years, therefore, she was matured enough and was capable to understand the significance and morality of the act for which she was consenting with the applicant. She in her statements under Section 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. did not make allegation of rape against the applicant, therefore, possibility of the victim being consenting party with the applicant cannot be ruled out.

¶14

8- Considering the facts and circumstances of the case as well as keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused and submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that the applicant has made out a fit

¶15

case for bail. Hence, the bail application is hereby allowed .

¶16

9- Let the applicant- Mehtab Ansari , be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions which are being imposed in the interest of justice:-

¶17

(i) That the applicant shall cooperate in the expeditious disposal of the trial and shall regularly attend the court unless inevitable.

¶18

(ii) That the applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any 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 to any police ofÏcer or tamper with the evidence.

¶19

(iii) That after his release, the applicant shall not involve in any criminal activity.

¶20

(iv) The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be verified by court concerned before the release of the applicant on bail.

¶21

10- In case of breach of any of the conditions mentioned above, court concerned will be at liberty to cancel the bail of the applicant.

¶22

11- It is made clear that the observations contained in the instant order are confined to the issue of bail only and shall not affect the merit of the trial.

¶23

Order Date :- 30.5.2023 Kashifa

¶24

Digitally signed by :- KASHIFA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Mehtab Ansari v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mehtab Ansari 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

Rohit Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Munni Devi Vs State of U.P.

Rajendra Singh Vs State of U.P.

Pradeep @ Rinku Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Shakir Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Monu Saraswat Vs State of U.P.