Allowed

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

Allahabad HC1 Dec 2023BAIL/50258/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a bail application concerning allegations under POCSO and IPC sections involving a minor, the single-judge court allowed bail, noting the uncertainty regarding the victim's age and lack of consistency in her testimony regarding willingness to go with the accused.

What did the court decide?

Applicant Parmanand released on bail on personal bond and two sureties subject to standard conditions.

Parmanand Vs State of U.P.and 3 Others — Child Custody and Guardianship | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:227167

¶2

Court No. - 70

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 50258 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Parmanand Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Azad Khan 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 notice has been served upon the informant on 20.11.2023. Despite service of notice none present on behalf of the informant.

¶7

Heard Sri Azad Khan, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Jhamman Ram, learned AGA-I for the State.

¶8

The instant bail application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 75 of 2023, under Sections 363, 366, 376 IPC and Section 3/4 POCSO Act, Police Station Shahjahanpur, District Jhansi during pendency of the trial.

¶9

FIR of the present case was lodged against two unknown persons under Section 363 IPC and according to the FIR two unknown persons enticed away the daughter of the informant aged about 17 years.

¶10

Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that when the statement of the victim under Section 161 Cr.P.C. was recorded then applicant was made accused in the present matter. He further submits that victim in her both the statements recorded under Sections 161 Cr.P.C. and 164 Cr.P.C. categorically stated that she herself had gone along with applicant and also performed marriage with him. He further submits that even informant and victim disclosed her age around 17 years and as per school record also she was around 17 years old.

¶11

He further submits that intentionally during investigation the ossification test of the victim was not conducted as victim is major girl and even appearance wise also she looked like a major girl

¶12

aged about 18 years. He further submits that it is a case of love affair and applicant is not having any criminal history and in the present matter he is in jail since 17.08.2023.

¶13

Per contra, learned AGA opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that as per school record victim was 16 years and 8 months old at the time of incident, therefore, her consent is immaterial but could not dispute the fact that during investigation the ossification test of the victim was not conducted and during investigation victim stated that she herself had gone along with applicant and also performed marriage with him.

¶14

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

¶15

However, from the school record, it reflects that at the time of incident victim was about 16 years 8 months old but even as per informant and victim herself she was about 17 years old. Further, during investigation ossification test of the victim was not conducted.

¶16

Further, victim in her both the statements recorded under Sections 161 Cr.P.C. and 164 Cr.P.C. stated that she herself had gone along with applicant and also performed marriage with the applicant.

¶17

The object behind POCSO Act is to protect the child from sexual abuse and not to punish the accused for love affair. In my view, by ignoring the statements of the girl (victim) recorded during investigation in the cases like present one, the bail of an accused should not be dismissed.

¶18

Further, the law is settled that bail should not be dismissed either for punitive or preventive purpose.

¶19

Further, applicant is not having any criminal history and in the present matter he is in jail since 17.08.2023.

¶20

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

¶21

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

¶22

Let the applicant - Parmanand be released on bail in the

¶23

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 :- 1.12.2023 AK Pandey

¶30

Digitally signed by :- ANUPAM KUMAR PANDEY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Parmanand 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Gaurav Vs State of U.P.

Aman Paswan Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Sanjeev Kumar Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Rajat Kumar Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Vishu Yadav @ Krishn Murari Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Mohan Singh Vs State of U.P.