Allowed

Deva Bansphor @ Bagh Bansphor v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Allahabad HC20 Jul 2023BAIL/26320/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single Judge of Allahabad High Court allowed bail for the applicant in a criminal matter involving Sections 363, 366, 376 IPC and POCSO. The court noted the victim's ossification test indicated an age of 19, contradicting school records, and the victim filed no objection to the bail application.

What did the court decide?

Release of applicant on bail by furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned.

Deva Bansphor @ Bagh Bansphor Vs State of… — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:144371

¶2

Court No. - 70

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 26320 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Deva Bansphor @ Bagh Bansphor Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Gautam,Mohd. Shamim Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Sameer Jain,J.

¶6

As matter pertains to provisions of POCSO Act, therefore, on 19.6.2023 notice was issued to the informant of the case.

¶7

As per office report dated 19.7.2023 notice has been served personally to the informant. Even Sri Tanay Kumar, learned AGA, for the State, apprised the Court that on 23.6.2023 notice has been served to the informant of the case.

¶8

Despite service of notice, none appeared on behalf of the informant.

¶9

Heard Sri Mohd. Shamim, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Tanay Kumar, learned AGA-I, for the State, for the State.

¶10

The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant with the prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No.65 of 2023, under Sections 363, 366 and 376 IPC and Section 3/4 POCSO Act, Police Station Surauli, District Deoria during pendency of the trial.

¶11

FIR of the present case was lodged against the applicant under Section 363 IPC and according to the FIR, applicant enticed away the minor daughter of the informant aged about 16 years.

¶12

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant is innocent and actually prosecutrix is major girl aged about 19

¶13

years and she according to her own wish had gone along with applicant and this fact is evident from her both the statements recorded under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C.

¶14

He further submits that prosecutrix in her both the statements recorded under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. categorically stated that applicant and she loved to each other and they have also performed marriage.

¶15

He further submits that although according to the school record the age of victim was around 16 years at the time of incident but according to her ossification test she was around 19 years old and this fact clearly suggests that prosecutrix was major at the time of incident.

¶16

He further submits that as per physical appearance prosecutrix appears to be major girl aged about 19 years old.

¶17

He further submits that applicant is not having any previous criminal history and he is in jail in the present matter since 6.4.2023.

¶18

Per contra learned AGA opposed the prayer for bail and submits that according to school record it appears that victim was around 16 years old at the time of incident but could not dispute the fact that as per her ossification test report she was around 19 years and she in her both the statements recorded under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. did not make any allegation against the applicant.

¶19

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

¶20

However, as per school record victim appears to be 16 years old but her radiological age was around 19 years.

¶21

Further, in both the statements recorded under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. prosecutrix did not make any allegation against the applicant and categorically stated that according to her own wish she had gone along with applicant and performed

¶22

marriage with him.

¶23

Law is well settled that bail application should not be rejected either for punitive or preventive purposes.

¶24

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

¶25

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

¶26

Let the applicant- Deva Bansphor @ Bagh Banshor 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:-

¶27

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

¶28

(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.

¶29

(iii) The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal and antisocial activity.

¶30

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.

¶31

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.

¶32

Order Date :- 20.7.2023 SKM

¶33

Digitally signed by :- SHRAVANA KUMAR MISHRA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Deva Bansphor @ Bagh Bansphor v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Deva Bansphor @ Bagh Bansphor v. State of U.P. and 4 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

Pawan Vs State of U.P. and Another

Bablu Bind Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Santram Vs State of U.P.

Dhunnu Vs State of U.P.

Sahir Ali Vs State of U.P.

Rajat Yadav Vs State of U.P.