Allowed

Lokendra @ Lobit v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC19 Sept 2023BAIL/33006/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a bail application filed by Lokendra @ Lobit accused of offences including kidnapping, abduction, cheating, and POCSO. The court noted the victim's statement indicating voluntary departure and lack of force, finding insufficient prima facie evidence apart from age, and ordered release on personal bond and sureties.

What did the court decide?

Release of applicant on personal bond and two sureties each, subject to conditions for appearing in court and not tampering with witnesses.

Lokendra @ Lobit Vs State of U.P. — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:180607

¶2

Court No. - 75

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 33006 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Lokendra @ Lobit Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Ram Raj Pandey,Shubham Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Umesh Chandra Sharma, J.

¶6

Notices issued to the respondents have been served upon them sufficiently, but neither they appeared nor filed counter affidavit.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA for the State-opposite party and perused the record.

¶8

The instant bail application, under Section 439 Cr.P.C., has been filed with a prayer to enlarge the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 474 of 2023, under Sections 363, 366, 506, I.P.C and 16/17 POCSO Act, Police Station Kotwali Nagar, District Bulandshahr, during the pendency of trial.

¶9

Counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the instant case. It is certainly found that the victim was aged about 12 - 14 years at the time of alleged occurrence, but she has stated in her statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C, that she voluntarily left her parental house and went to Delhi with the accused- applicant because she has also love affair with the applicant and has also stated that no force has been applied by the accused-applicant, she wants to marry with applicant. The victim also refused her internal medical examination. The applicant is in jail since 21.06.2023. In case, he is enlarged on bail, he will not misuse the said liberty.

¶10

5 Considering the facts and evidence, this Court is of the view except the fact that victim is below the age of majority, no other prima-facie or any other incriminating evidence is available against the accused- applicant, hence, the bail application of the applicant is allowed.

¶11

Learned AGA has opposed the prayer for bail but could not satisfactorily dispute the aforesaid submissions from the record.

¶12

Having regard to the submissions made but without commenting on merits of the case, I am of the opinion that the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail.

¶13

Let the applicant- Lokendra @ Lobit, involved in the aforesaid case crime be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to the conditions that he:

¶14

(i) shall appear on the date fixed by the trial court;

¶15

(ii) shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence;

¶16

(iii) shall not pressurize the prosecution witnesses.

¶17

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the prosecution shall be at liberty to move bail cancellation application before this Court.

¶18

Order Date :- 19.9.2023 Vinod.

¶19

Digitally signed by :- VINOD KUMAR JAISWAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Lokendra @ Lobit v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Lokendra @ Lobit v. State of U.P.

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

Kallu Kashyap Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Gaurav Alias Lotan Vs State of U.P.

Asharaphul Vs State of U.P.

Neeraj Vs State of U.P.

Pradeep Sachin Vs State of U.P.

Sonu Yadav Vs State of U.P.