Allowed

Ajay Bhartiya @ Chhotu v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC14 Jun 2023BAIL/22871/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Allahabad High Court allowed a bail application for the applicant, who faced charges including kidnapping, abduction, rape, and offences under the POCSO Act. The court noted inconsistencies in the FIR delay, the victim's delayed medical examination, and statements suggesting consent or lack of specific allegations against the applicant.

What did the court decide?

The applicant is released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each with specific conditions regarding tampering with evidence and appearance before the trial court.

Ajay Bhartiya @ Chhotu Vs State of U.P. and… — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:126557

¶2

Court No. - 69

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 22871 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Ajay Bhartiya @ Chhotu Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Shravan Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Mayank Kumar Jain,J.

¶6

As per order dated 22.05.2023, notice upon opposite party no. 2, is sufficient.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. None appears on behalf of opposite party no. 2, even in the revised calling of the list.

¶8

The present bail application has been filed on behalf of applicant in Case Crime No. 22 of 2023, under Sections 363, 366, 376 IPC and 3/4 of POCSO Act, Police Station Kareli, District Prayagraj/Allahabad with the prayer to enlarge the applicant on bail.

¶9

It has been argued by learned counsel for the applicant that applicant is innocent and he has not committed any offence. The incident is said to have taken place on 21.01.2023 while first information report for the same has been lodged with a delay of six days without any plausible examination. The victim was recovered on 30.03.2023 after two months of the incident. In her statement recorded under Section 161 of CrPC, she did not make any allegation that she was enticed away by the applicant and further stated that she accompanied the applicant on her own accord and they performed marriage in some temple. The victim refused to undergo for her medical examination. In her statement u/s 164 Cr.P.C. she only stated that she was in conversation with the applicant and did not make any allegation against the applicant of enticing her away or having physical relationship with her. The applicant is languishing in jail since 30 .03.2023 having no criminal history and that in case he is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate in trial.

¶10

Per contra, the learned Additional Government Advocate has

¶11

opposed the prayer for grant of bail but he could not dispute the aforesaid aspect of the matter.

¶12

Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, submissions of learned counsel for the parties, nature of evidence and all attending facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, the Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed.

¶13

Let the applicant Ajay Bhartiya @ Chhotu in the aforesaid crime be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of court concerned subject to the following conditions:

¶14

(1). The applicant will not tamper with the prosecution evidence during the trial.

¶15

(2). The applicant will not influence any witness.

¶16

(3). The applicant will appear before the trial Court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted.

¶17

(4). 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 her from disclosing such facts to the Court to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶18

In case of breach of any of the above condition, the prosecution shall be at liberty to move an application before this Court seeking cancellation of the bail.

¶19

Order Date :- 14.6.2023 Arti

¶20

Digitally signed by :- ARTI SHARMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Ajay Bhartiya @ Chhotu v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ajay Bhartiya @ Chhotu 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bambaiya@ Ganga Dayal Vs State of U.P.

Raghvendra Vs State of U.P.

Aslam Ali Vs State of U.P.

Amit Shrama and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Smt. Sheela Vs State of U.P.

Jitendra @ Sonu Sharma and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another