Ajit Kumar @ Dharmpal v. State of U.P.
Case brief
What is this about?
Single judge rejected bail application regarding Sections 363, 366, 376 IPC and 3/4 POCSO Act charges involving rape and harming a minor girl, refusing enlargement due to gravity of offense and minor status of victim.
What the court decided
A compact analysis
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.
Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:194707
Court No. - 69
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 27219 of 2019
Applicant :- Ajit Kumar @ Dharmpal Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Hiralal,Roopesh Kumar Nigam,Udantika Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Ashutosh Kumar Pandey
Hon'ble Samit Gopal,J.
- List revised.
- Heard Sri Roopesh Kumar Nigam, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Bare Lal Bind, learned A.G.A. for he State and perused the material on record.
- Sri Ashutosh Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the first informant is not present.
- This bail application under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the applicant Ajit Kumar @ Dharmpal, seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No.368 of 2018, under Sections 363, 366, 376 IPC and 3/4 POCSO Act, registered at P.S. Chandauli, District Chandauli.
- The F.I.R. of the present matter was lodged on 24.11.2018 by Premnarayan Ram against the applicant and Satish Kumar alleging therein that on 13.11.2018 his daughter aged about 16 years had gone to ease herself outside but did not return back. She was searched a lot wherein Shyamdei Devi of the village told him that the applicant on the motorcycle of his brother-in-law and his brother-inlaw Satish were seen taking his daughter. The informant then went to the house of the Ajit but he was also not present. The family members of Ajit are also not in the village. They are living in Faridabad. The F.I.R. be lodged against Ajit and Satish for alluring and enticing her away.
Issues for consideration
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the applicant is entitled to be released on bail during trial in a case involving sexual offences against a minor.
Whether the consent of a minor, aged 16 years and 3 months, to sexual intercourse is a valid defense to a charge under Section 376 IPC and 3 POCSO Act.
Parties & counsel
- applicant
Ajit Kumar @ Dharmpal
- respondent
State of U.P.
Coram
Samit Gopal
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
- Court
- Allahabad HC
- Decided on
- · October
- Registered
- Case no.
- BAIL/27219/2019
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court