Allowed

Meetesh @ Neetesh v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC4 Jul 2023BAIL/30261/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application filed by Meetesh @ Neetesh challenging conviction under Section 376 IPC and POCSO Act. Court allowed bail stating applicant had no prior criminal history and had been in jail for three years, releasing him on personal bond and sureties.

What did the court decide?

Release on bail by furnishing personal bond and two sureties in like amount with specific conditions imposed.

Meetesh @ Neetesh Vs State of U.P. and Another — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:131897

¶2

Court No. - 70

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 30261 of 2021

¶4

Applicant :- Meetesh @ Neetesh Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Bhishm Pal Singh,Abhilasha Singh,Ashutosh Yadav,Onkar Nath,Rahul Yadav,Upendra Upadhyay Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Sameer Jain,J.

¶6

From the record, it reflects that notice has already been served to the informant of the case way back in the year 2021.

¶7

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

¶8

Heard Ms. Abhilasha Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and Dr. S.B. Maurya, learned AGA-I for the State-respondent.

¶9

The instant application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 283 of 2020, under Sections 363, 366, 376 IPC & 3/4 POCSO Act & 3(2)V S.C./S.T. Act, Police Station- Kotwali Dehat, District- Etah, during pendency of the trial in the court below.

¶10

FIR of the present case was lodged on 26.07.2020 against the applicant and according to the FIR, on 24.07.2020, applicant enticed away the minor daughter of the informant aged about 15 years.

¶11

Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that entire allegation made against the applicant is totally false and baseless and applicant neither enticed away nor he ever committed rape with the victim and actually victim is a major girl aged about 18 years and she had gone along with the applicant according to her own wish and when she recovered then under the pressure of her parents, she made allegation of rape against the applicant.

¶12

She further submitted that although, victim in her statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. made allegation of rape only

¶13

against the applicant but when her statement was recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. then she changed her entire version and stated that four persons including applicant committed rape with her and this fact suggests that she is not a reliable witness.

¶14

She further submitted that as per the educational certificate of the victim, at the time of incident her age was seventeen and half years, therefore, this fact suggests that at the time of incident, she was around 18 years' old. She further submitted that applicant is not having any criminal history and he is in jail since 07.08.2020 i.e. for almost three years.

¶15

Per contra, learned AGA opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that victim in her both the statements recorded under Sections 161 Cr.P.C. and 164 Cr.P.C. made allegation of rape against the applicant but could not dispute the fact that victim in her statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. made allegation of rape only against the applicant but in the statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., she made allegation of rape against four persons including applicant, therefore, there are material contradictions in the statements of the victim recorded under Sections 161 Cr.P.C. and 164 Cr.P.C. and even as per the her school record, at the time of incident, she was more than seventeen years' old and applicant, in the present matter, is in jail for almost three years.

¶16

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

¶17

Although, in the statements recorded under Sections 161 Cr.P.C. and 164 Cr.P.C., victim made allegation of rape against the applicant but in the statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. she made allegation of rape only against the applicant and in her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., she made allegation of rape against four persons including applicant.

¶18

Further, in paragraph no. 18 of the affidavit, applicant come with a specific defence that both applicant and victim were having love affair with each other and victim had gone along with the applicant according to her own wish.

¶19

Further, as per school record, at the time of incident, she was around 17 years' old and applicant is in jail for almost three years.

¶20

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

¶21

bail.

¶22

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

¶23

Let the applicant- Meetesh @ Neetesh 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 anti-social 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 :- 4.7.2023

¶30

KK Patel

¶31

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

Meetesh @ Neetesh v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Meetesh @ Neetesh v. State of U.P. and Another

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

Asgar Vs State of U.P.

Joginder Alias Andahwa Vs State of U.P.

Arjun Vs State of U.P.

Radhey Shyam Vs State of U.P.

Digvijay Yadav Vs State of U.P.

Suraj @ Ballu Vs State of U.P.