Arun Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:142906

Court No. - 70

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 27079 of 2023

Applicant :- Arun Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Sudhanshu Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Subhash Chand

¶5

Hon'ble Sameer Jain,J.

¶6

None appeared on behalf of the informant. However, learned AGA for the State-respondent is present

¶7

Heard Sri Sudhanshu Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Ghanshyam Mishra, learned Brief Holder for the State-respondent.

¶8

The instant application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 476 of 2022, under Sections 363, 366, 376 IPC and section 3/4 POCSO Act and section 3(2),(5) SC/ST Act, Police Station Jasrana, District Firozabad, during pendency of the trial in the court below.

¶9

FIR of the present case was lodged against the applicant under sections 363 and 366 IPC and according to the FIR applicant enticed away the minor daughter of the informant aged about 14 years.

¶10

Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the entire allegations made against the applicant are totally false and baseless and in the statement recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C. victim clearly stated that she according to her own wish had gone to Ghaziabad alongwith his cousin brother and she on query specifically stated that applicant had not taken her and she did not even know her.

¶11

He further submitted that although in the statement recorded under section 164 Cr.P.C. victim stated that she loved the applicant and she according to her own wish had gone alongwith the applicant and in the statement under section 164 Cr.P.C. she further stated that she want to go alongwith the applicant and also stated that wrong date of birth has been disclosed by her parents in her school records.

¶12

He next submitted that although according to the school

¶13

record, victim is around 15 years old but actually she was a major and intentionally, during investigation, her ossification test was not conducted.

¶14

He further submitted that applicant is having no criminal history and he is in jail in the present matter since 1.4.2023, therefore, he may be released on bail.

¶15

Per contra, learned AGA opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that according to school record, age of victim appears to be 14 years but could not dispute the fact that in the statement of the victim recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C. she categorically stated that she had gone to Guzarat alongwith his cousin brother. However, he further submitted that victim stated in her statement recorded under section 164 Cr.P.C. that she had gone alongwith the applicant and also performed marriage with her and therefore, it appears that applicant after marriage made physical relation-ship with her, therefore, considering the age of the victim, consent of the victim is immaterial.

¶16

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

¶17

Although, according to the school record, victim appears to be 14 years old but she in her statement recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C. did not state anything against the applicant and stated that she had gone alongwith her maternal brother to Guzarat. Although she in her statement recorded under section 164 Cr.P.C. stated that she loved the applicant and had gone alongwith him and also performed marriage with him, therefore, considering the material contradictions in the statements of the victim, recorded under sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C., in my view, applicant is entitled to be released on bail.

¶18

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

¶19

Let the applicant- Arun , 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:-

¶20

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

¶21

(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

¶22

evidence.

¶23

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

¶24

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.

¶25

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.

¶26

Order Date :- 18.7.2023

¶27

Ankita

¶28

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

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

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.

Chandrabhan Vs State of U.P.

Yusuf Vs State of U.P.

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