Allowed

Prakash @ Nanhey v. State of U.P.and 3 Others

Allahabad HC18 Jul 2023BAIL/26235/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this bail application regarding offenses under IPC and POCSO, the High Court allowed the release of the applicant on a personal bond and two sureties. The court relied on the victim's statements indicating voluntary association and a medical report suggesting she was 18, overriding the school record stating she was 14, while clarifying no opinion on trial merits. (82 words)

What did the court decide?

Release on bail with a personal bond and two sureties in like amount, subject to standard conditions including appearance, non-tampering, and no anti-social activity.

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

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:143044

¶2

Court No. - 70

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 26235 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Prakash @ Nanhey Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Manoj Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Mohd. Ashraf

¶5

Hon'ble Sameer Jain,J.

¶6

None appeared on behalf of the informant, although, learned AGA for the State is present.

¶7

Heard Sri Manoj Kumar, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Ravi Kant Kushwaha, learned AGA for the State-respondent.

¶8

The instant application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 364 of 2022, under Sections 63, 366, 376(3), 376(2)(N) IPC & 4(2)/5L/6 POCSO Act, Police Station- C.B. Ganj, District- Bareilly, during pendency of the trial in the court below.

¶9

FIR of the present case was lodged against the applicant and his family members under Sections 363, 366, 504 IPC and according to the FIR, applicant enticed away the minor daughter of the informant aged about 13 years.

¶10

Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that actually prosecutrix of the case is a major girl aged about 18 years and she according to her own wish had gone along with the applicant but totally on the basis of false allegation FIR of the present case was lodged. He further submitted that in her both the statements recorded under Sections 161 Cr.P.C. and 164 Cr.P.C. victim categorically stated that she according to her own wish had gone along with the applicant and also performed marriage with him.

¶11

He further submitted that although, as per the school record of the victim, she was around 14 years' old at the time incident but according to report of CMO concerned, her radiological age was around 18 years, therefore, it appears that her parent did not disclose her correct age in her school record. He further submitted that applicant is not having any criminal history and he is in jail in

¶12

the present matter since 21.09.2022.

¶13

Per contra, learned AGA opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that as per the school record of the victim, she was hardly 14 years' old, therefore, her consent is immaterial but could not dispute the fact that as per the CMO concerned, at the time of incident age of the victim was around 18 years and she in her both the statements did not state against the applicant.

¶14

I have heard both the parties and perused the record of the case.

¶15

Although, according to the school record, age of the victim appears to be about 14 years at the time of incident but as per the CMO report, she was around 18 years' old and prosecutriex i.e. victim of the case in her both the statements recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and 164 Cr.P.C. did not make any allegation against the applicant and categorically stated that she according to her own wish had gone along with the applicant and also performed marriage with him.

¶16

Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case discussed above, in my view applicant is entitled to be released on bail.

¶17

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

¶18

Let the applicant- Prakash @ Nanhey 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:-

¶19

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

¶20

(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.

¶21

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

¶22

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.

¶23

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.

¶24

Order Date :- 18.7.2023

¶25

KK Patel

¶26

Digitally signed by :- KRISHN KANT PATEL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Prakash @ Nanhey v. State of U.P.and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prakash @ Nanhey 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

Pooja Vs State of U.P.

Aman Yadav Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Navdeep Alias Dabbu Vs State of U.P.

Arun Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Chandrabhan Vs State of U.P.

Yusuf Vs State of U.P.