Allowed

Pradeep Chauhan v. State of U.P.and 3 Others

Allahabad HC11 Dec 2023BAIL/50291/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Hearing a bail application in a POCSO/IPC case involving a minor, the High Court noted the victim's statements indicated consent and a marriage, labeling the incident a love affair. Considering the object of the Act and the applicant's lack of prior record, the bail was allowed.

What did the court decide?

Release on bail by furnishing a personal bond and two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court.

Pradeep Chauhan Vs State of U.P.and 3 Others — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:234054

¶2

Court No. - 70

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 50291 of 2023 Applicant :- Pradeep Chauhan Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Dhiresh Kumar,Anil Kumar Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Vidya Kant Mishra

¶4

Hon'ble Sameer Jain,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Dhiresh, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Shailesh Kumar Tiwari, learned Advocate, holding brief of Sri Vidya Kant Mishra, learned counsel for the informant and Sri Imran Khan, learned AGA, for the State.

¶6

The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant with the prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No.283 of 2023, under Sections 363, 366 and 376 IPC and Section 3/4 POCSO Act, Police Station Maniyar, District Ballia during pendency of the trial.

¶7

FIR of the present case was lodged on 10.9.2023 against the applicant and according to the FIR, on 6.9.2023 applicant enticed away the daughter of the informant aged about 16 years.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that entire allegation made against the applicant is totally false and baseless and this fact is evident from the statements of the victim recorded under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C.

¶9

He further submits that victim in her both the statements recorded during investigation categorically stated that she herself had gone along with the applicant and had also performed marriage with him.

¶10

He further submits that however, as per school record the age of the victim at the time of incident was about 16 years 9 months but

¶11

in fact she is major and intentionally during investigation her ossification test was not conducted and even appearance wise victim looks like major girl.

¶12

He further submits that applicant is not having any previous criminal history and in the present matter he is in jail since 17.9.2023.

¶13

Per contra, learned AGA as well as learned counsel for the informant opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that as per school record the age of the victim at the time of incident was 16 years 9 months and, therefore, her consent is immaterial but both the learned counsels could not dispute the fact that during investigation ossification test of the victim could not be conducted.

¶14

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

¶15

However, as per school record the age of the victim at the time of incident appears to be 16 years 9 months but during investigation her ossification test was not conducted and victim in her both the statements recorded under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. categorically stated that she herself had gone along with the applicant and also performed marriage with him.

¶16

The instant matter appears to be a case of love affair.

¶17

The object behind the POCSO Act is to protect a child from sexual abuse and not to punish accused or victim for love affair.

¶18

In my view, by ignoring the statements of the victim recorded during investigation in cases like present one, the bail application of an accused should not be dismissed.

¶19

Law is settled that bail application should not be dismissed either for punitive or preventive purposes.

¶20

Further, applicant is not having any previous criminal history and in the present matter he is in jail since September, 2023.

¶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- Pradeep Chauhan 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 :- 11.12.2023

¶30

SKM

¶31

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

Pradeep Chauhan v. State of U.P.and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pradeep Chauhan 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

Dr. Ali Mohammad Vs State of U.P.

Balak Ram @ Vijay Kumar Vs State of U.P.

Usman Vs State of U.P.

Devesh Verma Vs State of U.P.

Praveen Vs State of U.P.

Angad Maurya Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others