Allowed

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

Allahabad HC28 Jul 2023BAIL/53547/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Hon'ble High Court of Allahabad allowed a criminal bail application filed by Omendra in a case involving crimes under IPC and POCSO. The court observed discrepancies in the victim's age and lack of rape allegations, granting bail subject to conditions.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail by furnishing a personal bond and two sureties to the satisfaction of the trial court.

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

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:152326

¶2

Court No. - 70

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 53547 of 2022

¶4

Applicant :- Omendra Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Saurabh Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Sameer Jain,J.

¶6

On 04.04.2023 and 03.05.2023 this Court directed the CMO, Budaun to constitute a Medical Board to conduct the ossification test of the victim and in pursuant to the orders passed by this Court, CMO concerned placed a report along with the age certificate of the prosecutrix, which is now on record.

¶7

Sri Rajeev Dhar Dwivedi, learned AGA for the State apprised the Court that on 15.11.2022 notice has been served to the informant of the case. Despite service of notice, none appeared on behalf of the informant.

¶8

Heard Sri Saurabh Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Rajeev Dhar Dwivedi, learned AGA for the Staterespondent.

¶9

The instant application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 352 of 2022, under Sections 363, 376(3) IPC & 3/4 POCSO Act, Police StationDataganj, District- Budaun, during pendency of the trial in the court below.

¶10

FIR of the present case was lodged against the applicant and co-accused Pawan under Section 363 IPC and according to the FIR, applicant along with his friend enticed away the daughter of the informant aged about 13 years.

¶11

Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that entire allegation made against the applicant is totally false and baseless and actually prosecutrix herself had gone along with the applicant according to her own wish and this fact is evident from her statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. He further submits, although, in her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. she stated that applicant abducted her but she did not make any allegation of rape against him.

¶12

He further submitted that although, from the school record, it appears that age of the prosecutrix, at the time of incident, was around 13 years but from her age certificate issued by CMO, it appears that she was 17 years' old on 11.04.2023 and therefore, even as per the ossification test report, at the time incident, she was more than 16 years' old.

¶13

He further submitted that applicant is not having any criminal history and he is in jail since 03.08.2022 i.e. for almost a year.

¶14

Per contra, learned AGA opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that as per the school record, victim appears to be hardly 13 years' old at the time of incident and even as per the ossification test, she was around 16 years' old but could not dispute the fact that in the statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. victim did not make any allegation of rape against the applicant and applicant is in jail for almost a year and he is not having any criminal history.

¶15

I have heard both the parties and perused the record of the case.

¶16

Although, from the school record, it appears that prosecutrix is around 13 years' old but as per the ossification test report, at the time of incident, she was around 16 years' old. Further, although, in her statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. she stated that she according to her own wish had gone along with the applicant and physical relationship was developed between both of them according to her consent but in her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. she only stated that applicant abducted her and she did not state that either she was raped by the applicant or any physical relationship was developed between them. Further, applicant is in jail for almost a year.

¶17

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

¶18

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

¶19

Let the applicant- Omendra 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:-

¶20

(i) The applicant shall appear before the trial court on the dates fixed, unless his personal presence is exempted.

¶21

(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.

¶22

(iii) The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal and antisocial activity.

¶23

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.

¶24

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.

¶25

Order Date :- 28.7.2023

¶26

KK Patel

¶27

Digitally signed by :- KRISHN KANT PATEL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Omendra 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

Bheem Gupta Vs State of U.P.

Rajesh @ Akshat Raj Yadav Vs State of U.P.

Sanjay Seth Vs State of U.P.

Leelawati Devi Vs State of U.P.

Vivek Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Sanni Panchal Vs State of U.P.