Allowed

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

Allahabad HC21 Jul 2023BAIL/29026/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Court allowed bail application of applicant accused of abduction and alleged offences under IPC 363, 366, 376 and POCSO. Court accepted discharge of school records noting prosecutrix appeared major at incident. Applicant to execute personal bond and two sureties.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail on personal bond and two sureties conditioned to appear in court and not interfere with investigation.

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

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:145448

¶2

Court No. - 70

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 29026 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Rahul Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Shubham Srivastava,Sunil Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Sameer Jain,J.

¶6

Sri Jhamman Ram, learned AGA-I, for the State, apprised the Court that on 29.6.2023 notice has been served to the informant of the case.

¶7

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

¶8

Counter affidavit filed today on behalf of the State is taken on record.

¶9

Heard Sri Sunil Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Jhamman Ram, learned AGA-I, 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.42 of 2023, under Sections 363, 366 and 376 IPC and Section 3/4 POCSO Act, Police Station Titro, District Saharanpur during pendency of the trial.

¶11

FIR of the present case was lodged against the applicant under Section 366 IPC and according to the FIR, applicant enticed away the daughter of the informant aged about 19 years.

¶12

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that as per informant, the age of the prosecutrix is 19 years and, therefore, she was major and from her both the statements recorded under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. it also reflects that she was major and she according to her own wish had gone along with

¶13

applicant.

¶14

He further submits that prosecutrix in her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. stated that she had performed marriage with applicant. He further submits that although according to her school record her age at the time of incident was around 15 years but it appears that her wrong date of birth was mentioned by her parents in the School record as even according to her parents she was around 19 years and even as per certificate of CMO concerned, her radiological age was 19 years.

¶15

He next submits that applicant is not having any previous criminal history and in the present matter he is in jail since 9.5.2023,

¶16

Per contra, learned AGA although opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the argument on facts advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant.

¶17

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

¶18

From the FIR as well as from the statements of the prosecutrix recorded under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. it appears that her age was around 19 years but during investigating Investigating Officer procured her school record and according to school record at the time of incident her age was around 15 years.

¶19

Further, from the certificate of CMO concerned, radiological age of the prosecutrix was 19 years at the time of incident and, therefore, at this stage it cannot be precisely said that she was below 18 years old. Further, victim in her both the statements recorded under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. stated that she had gone along with applicant and in the statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. she stated that she had

¶20

already performed marriage with him. Further, prosecutrix in her statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. categorically pointed out that no physical relationship was developed between her and applicant.

¶21

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

¶22

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

¶23

Let the applicant- Rahul 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:-

¶24

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

¶25

(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.

¶26

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

¶27

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.

¶28

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.

¶29

Order Date :- 21.7.2023/SKM

¶30

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

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rahul 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dhunnu Vs State of U.P.

Sahir Ali Vs State of U.P.

Rajat Yadav Vs State of U.P.

Ashish Giri Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Suraj Singh Vs State of U.P.

Rijwan Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others