Allowed

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

Allahabad HC26 May 2023BAIL/52190/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. was filed by Mahendra in a case involving Sections 363, 366, 376(3) IPC and POCSO. The court allowed the application, granting bail after finding that the victim's ossification test suggested she was 18 years old, she had no history of protest during cohabitation, and allegations of rape were not made in her statements.

What did the court decide?

Released on bail subject to personal bond and two sureties with conditions regarding trial attendance, no inducement, and no criminal activity.

Mahendra Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:118183

¶2

Court No. - 75

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 52190 of 2022

¶4

Applicant :- Mahendra Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Mahendra Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Arvind Kumar Sahu

¶5

Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Singh,J.

¶6

1- Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned Additional Government Advocate representing the State and learned counsel appearing on behalf of the first informant.

¶7

2- The instant bail application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. has been filed on behalf of the applicant with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No. 156 of 2022, under Sections 363, 366, 376(3) of I.P.C. and 3/4 Protection of Children From Sexual Offences Act, Police Station-Qadarchowk, District-Budau, during the pendency of trial.

¶8

3- As per the prosecution case in brief, the informant who is mother of the victim lodged F.I.R. on 17.05.2022 against the applicant with the allegations inter-alia that on 08.05.2022 at about 9:00 am when she along with her husband had gone to farm, the applicant who is her neighbour enticed away his minor daughter.

¶9

4- The main substratum of argument of learned counsel for the applicant is that though in the F.I.R., it is alleged that the victim is minor but as per her ossification test report dated 16.07.2022, she is aged about 18 years and she in her statements under Section 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. did not make allegation of rape against the applicant and she has stated that physical relation between them was made with their own consent. Lastly, it is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that there is no chance of the applicant of fleeing away from the judicial process or tampering with the prosecution evidence. The applicant is languishing in jail since 17.07.2022

¶10

having no criminal history to his credit and in case he is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate in the early disposal of the case.

¶11

5- Per contra , learned A.G.A. for the State as well as learned counsel for the informant opposed the prayer for bail of the applicant but they could not dispute the above factual aspect of the matter as argued on behalf of the applicant.

¶12

6- Having heard learned counsel for the parties and examined the matter in its entirety, I find that it is not disputed that radiological age of the victim is 18 years and she was capable to understand the things. She stayed in the company of the applicant for two months without any protest though she had an ample opportunity to do so. As per her medical examination report, her hymen was found old torn and healed. The victim did not make allegation of rape against the applicant, therefore, possibility of the victim being consenting party with the applicant cannot be ruled out.

¶13

7- Considering the facts and circumstances of the case as well as keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused and submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. Hence, the bail application is hereby allowed .

¶14

8- Let the applicant- Mahendra , be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions which are being imposed in the interest of justice:-

¶15

(i) That the applicant shall cooperate in the expeditious disposal of the trial and shall regularly attend the court unless inevitable.

¶16

(ii) That the applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any

¶17

person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police ofÏcer or tamper with the evidence.

¶18

(iii) That after his release, the applicant shall not involve in any criminal activity.

¶19

(iv) The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be verified by court concerned before the release of the applicant on bail.

¶20

9- In case of breach of any of the conditions mentioned above, court concerned will be at liberty to cancel the bail of the applicant.

¶21

10- It is made clear that the observations contained in the instant order are confined to the issue of bail only and shall not affect the merit of the trial.

¶22

Order Date :- 26.5.2023 Kashifa

¶23

Digitally signed by :- KASHIFA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mahendra 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sohit Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Shaukeen Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Salman @ Baqar @ Chhote Vs State of U.P.

Sagum Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Mukendra Nishad Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Panch Bahadur and 8 Others Vs State of U.P.