The Court allowed a bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. granted after finding the victim was major, consenting, and married, deeming the applicant fit for bail with standard conditions.
Release on bail furnishing personal bond and two sureties on specified conditions.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 75
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 24964 of 2022
Applicant :- Anuj Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Amit Daga,Sushil Kumar Pandey,Vipul Kumar Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Rajeev Kumar Pal
Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Singh,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned Additional Government Advocate representing the State and Mr. Rajeev Kumar Pal, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the first informant/opposite party No.2.
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. 73 of 2022, under Sections 363, 366, 376, 506 of I.P.C. and Section 5/6 POCSO Act, Police StationMansoorpur, District-Muzaffarnagar, during the pendency of trial.
As per the prosecution case in brief, the informant who is father of the victim lodged F.I.R. on 05.04.2022 at about 21:22 hours, under Section 363 of I.P.C., against the present applicant- Anuj with the allegations inter alia that his daughter was enticed away by him.
It is argued by learned counsel for the applicant that as per ossification test report of the victim, she is major aged about 18-19 years. She, in her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. has made allegation against the applicant that he made physical relation with her on the pretext of marriage with her, she also stated that she is still ready for marriage with the applicant. It is pointed out that considering the statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. of the victim the coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 14.10.2022 granted interim bail to the applicant for the period of six months with the direction that after being released on bail applicant will make efforts to settle dispute with the victim and inform the Court
about what happened between them by way of afÏdavit of compliance. It is also pointed out that since victim was already a married on 03.07.2022 prior to passing the order dated 14.10.2022, therefore, the applicant is unable to settle the dispute in terms of statement under section 164 Cr.P.C. of the victim. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant has been falsely implicated in this case, victim was major on the day of incident and she was consenting party with the applicant. 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 02.05.2022 having no criminal history to his credit.
Per contra, learned A.G.A. for the State opposed the prayer for bail of the applicant by contending that after investigation, charge sheet has been submitted against the applicant but learned counsel for the informant could not dispute the above factual aspect of the matter as argued on behalf of the applicant.
Having heard learned counsel for the parties and examined the matter in its entirety, it appears that at the time of passing the order dated 14.10.2022 granting interim bail to the applicant, the fact that marriage of the victim has already been solemnized, was not brought to the knowledge of the Hon'ble Court. I also find that there is no dispute that victim was major on the relevant date of incident and her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. indicates that she was consenting party with the applicant.
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 case for bail. Hence, the bail application is hereby allowed.
Let the applicant- Anuj , 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:-
(i) That the applicant shall cooperate in the expeditious disposal of the trial and shall regularly attend the court unless inevitable.
(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.
(iii) That after his release, the applicant shall not involve in any criminal activity.
(iv) The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be verified by court concerned before the release of the applicant on bail.
In case of breach of any of the conditions mentioned above, court concerned will be at liberty to cancel the bail of the applicant.
Order Date :- 20.4.2023 Kashifa
Digitally signed by :- KASHIFA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the applicant is entitled to bail in a POCSO and IPC case involving a major victim who was consenting and since married.
3 provisions across 3 enactments
Anuj
State Of U.P.
Sanjay Kumar Singh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
