Allowed

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

Allahabad HC22 May 2023BAIL/20402/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge bail application allowed for an accused facing charges of abduction and sexual offences against a minor. The court relied on victim statements suggesting voluntary conduct and released the applicant on bail with conditions.

What did the court decide?

Release on bail upon furnishing a personal bond and two sureties, subject to standard conditions for future appearance and non-interference.

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

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:111946

¶2

Court No. - 74

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 20402 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Khalid Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Inder Pal Singh Tomar,Anjali Singh Tomer Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Sameer Jain,J.

¶6

Sri Amit Kumar Shukla, learned Brief Holder apprised the Court that notice has been served to the informant on 6.1.2023. Despite service of notice none appeared on behalf of the informant

¶7

Heard Ms. Anjali Singh Tomer, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Amit Kumar Shukla, learned Brief Holder for the Staterespondent.

¶8

The instant application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 259 of 2022, under Sections 363, 366 & 376 IPC & 3/4 POCSO Act, Police Station Civil Lines, District Muzaffar Nagar, during pendency of the trial in the court below.

¶9

FIR of the present case was lodged against the applicant and one another person under section 363 and 366 IPC and according to the FIR, earlier also applicant has enticed the daughter of the informant aged about 16 years and thereafter again he enticed away his daughter.

¶10

Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the entire allegations made against the applicant are totally false and baseless and applicant neither abducted nor enticed the daughter of the informant and actually daughter of the informant and applicant loved each other and earlier also victim had gone alongwith the applicant and as her parents wants to perform her marriage with some other fellow, therefore, again she had gone alongwith the applicant and performed marriage with him and she had also became pregnant with him and this fact is even evident from the statements of the victim recorded under sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C.

¶11

She further submitted that although according to the doctor, radiological age of the victim is 17 years and according to her school record she is around sixteen and a half years old but actually, she is major aged about 18 years and applicant is also a young boy aged about 21-22 years and therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, applicant may be released on bail.

¶12

Per contra, learned AGA opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that from the school record as well as from radiological age of the victim, it appears that she is minor girl aged below 18 years but could not dispute the fact that according to the doctor radiological age of the victim is about 17 years and in both the statements recorded under sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. victim categorically stated that she according to her own wish had gone alongwith the applicant and had performed marriage with him and she had also became pregnant with him.

¶13

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

¶14

Although, according to the school record victim is around sixteen and a half years old girl and as per medical her radiological age is about 17 years but in her both the statements recorded under sections 161 and 164 Cr.PC. victim stated that she according to her own wish had gone with the applicant and had performed marriage with him and she also became pregnant with him and she further stated that her parents fixed her marriage with some other person, therefore, she had solemnized marriage with the boy of his own choice i.e. with applicant and applicant also appears to be a young boy of about 22 years.

¶15

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

¶16

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

¶17

Let the applicant- Khalid , 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:-

¶18

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

¶19

(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.

¶20

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

¶21

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.

¶22

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.

¶23

Order Date :- 22.5.2023

¶24

Ankita

¶25

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

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Khalid 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

Jitendra Kumar Patel Vs State of U.P.

Jitendra Kumar Vs State of U.P.

Saif Ali Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Shanker Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Shah Alam @ Gamgam Vs State of U.P.

Pradeep Jain Vs State of U.P.