Allowed

Ankit v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC26 Oct 2023BAIL/43704/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a bail application regarding enticement under IPC Sections 363 and 366, the High Court allowed the applicant, who faced delays in the FIR and conflicting victim statements. The court imposed strict conditions to secure presence and ensure no abuse of liberty.

What did the court decide?

Release on bail with personal bond and two sureties, subject to conditions regarding court attendance and prohibition of adjournments of evidence.

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

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:204009

¶2

Court No. - 72

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 43704 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Ankit Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Nirbhay Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.

¶6

List has been revised.

¶7

Heard Sri Nirbhay Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Sunil Kumar, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record.

¶8

Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No.152 of 2023, under Sections 363, 366 I.P.C., Police Station- Hathras Gate, DistrictHathras, during the pendency of trial.

¶9

As per prosecution case, the niece of the informant is stated to have gone to attend a birthday party of her friend on 14.5.2023 at about 07:00 a.m., but did not return to the house. After frantic search, it came out that she used to talk to the applicant and it is he who had enticed her away.

¶10

Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the applicant is absolutely innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case with a view to cause unnecessary harassment and to victimize him. The FIR is delayed by about more than two days and there is no explanation of the said delay caused. Learned counsel has stated that the victim has not allayed any allegations against the applicant. The FIR has been instituted on the basis of suspicion only. To buttress his arguments, learned counsel has placed much reliance on the statement of the victim recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., whereby she has categorically stated that applicant has nothing to do with her and he has not committed any sexual offence with her and has not enticed her away rather she had gone to Jalesar alongwith the applicant out of her own sweet-will on 14.5.2023.

¶11

Learned counsel for the applicant has further stated that as per the ossification test report, age of the victim has come up between 15-16 years. Learned counsel has stated that a leverage of two years may be granted to the applicant on the upper side

¶12

and has placed much reliance on the judgments of the Apex Court passed in Jaya Mala vs. State of J & K, (1982) 2 SCC 538 and Mohd. Imran Khan vs. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi), (2011) 10 SCC 192 , whereby it has been opined that the radiologist cannot predict the correct date of birth rather there is a long margin of 1 to 2 years on either side.

¶13

Several other submissions have been made on behalf of the applicant to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against him. The circumstances which, as per counsel, led to the false implication of the applicant have also been touched upon at length. It is further stated that there is no criminal history of the applicant. The applicant is languishing in jail since 17.8.2023. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶14

Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the bail application.

¶15

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, the evidence on record, and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed.

¶16

Let the applicant- Ankit , who is involved in aforementioned 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 following conditions. Further, before issuing the release order, the sureties be verified.

¶17

(i) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the date fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in Court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the Trial Court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law.

¶18

(ii) The applicant shall remain present before the Trial Court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the Trial Court may proceed against him under Section 229-A IPC.

¶19

(iii) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C., may be issued and if applicant fails to appear before the Court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the Trial Court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under Section 174-A IPC.

¶20

(iv) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the Trial Court on dates fixed for (1) opening of the case, (2) framing of charge and (3) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. If in the opinion of the Trial Court absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the Trial Court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law.

¶21

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be

¶22

a ground for cancellation of bail.

¶23

It is made clear that observations made in granting bail to the applicant shall not in any way affect the learned trial Judge in forming his independent opinion based on the testimony of the witnesses.

¶24

Order Date :- 26.10.2023 Vikas

¶25

[Krishan Pahal, J.]

¶26

Digitally signed by :- VIKAS VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Ankit v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ankit 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Deshraj Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another

Babu Khan Vs State of U.P. and Another

Shivam Gupta Vs State of U.P.

Deenanath Patel Vs State of U.P. and Another

Abhishek Kumar Vs State of U.P.

Sabir Vs State of U.P.