Allowed

Mujiburahman v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC21 Apr 2023BAIL/54948/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C., the Allahabad High Court considered the case of an applicant accused of enticement and sexual offences against a minor near the age of majority. The Court held that the victim was capable of understanding the morality of the act and noted the possibility of consent based on her statement. Consequently, the bail application was allowed with standa

What did the court decide?

The applicant is released on bail to furnish a personal bond and two sureties in the like amount under specific conditions.

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

¶1

Court No. - 75

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 54948 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Mujiburahman Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Mohd. Naushad Ahmad Khan,Shamimul Hasnain Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Dhirendra Kumar Verma

¶4

Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Singh,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned Additional Government Advocate representing the State. Mr. Dhirendra Kumar Verma, learned counsel for the first informant / complainant is not present.

¶6

By means of this application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C., applicant Mujiburahman, who is involved in Case Crime No. 467 of 2022, under Sections 363, 376 IPC read with Section 3/4 POCSO Act, police station Chandpur, district Bijnor, seeks enlargement on bail during the pendency of trial.

¶7

As per prosecution case, in brief, informant, who is father of the victim, lodged the first information report on 23.07.2022 against the applicant Muziburrahman and three other named persons, namely, Mohsin, Suhail and Mohd. Faisal with the allegation inter alia that on 20.07.2022 at about 12 o'clock in the night, the applicant has enticed away his daughter aged about 17 years.

¶8

Main substratum of argument of learned counsel for the applicant is that the victim was major on the date of the incident and she was consenting party with the applicant, therefore, she refused for her internal medical examination. In support of his submission, learned counsel for the applicant referred the statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. of the victim wherein she has stated inter alia that she was in love with the applicant for the last one and half years and she wanted to marry the applicant but he belongs to different caste, therefore, her parents were not ready for marriage. On account of this reason, she eloped with the applicant on 20.07.2022 and solemnized court marriage on 06.08.2022 in Delhi. She has also stated that earlier no physical

¶9

relation was made between them but after marriage, physical relation was made with their own consent and she was happy with her husband/applicant. The applicant does not have any criminal history to his credit. Lastly, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that there is no chance of the applicant fleeing away from the judicial process or tampering with the prosecution evidence. The applicant is languishing in jail since 13.09.2022 and in case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and cooperate with the trial.

¶10

Per contra, learned A.G.A. for the State opposed the prayer for bail of the applicant but does not dispute the above factual aspect of the matter as argued on behalf of the applicant.

¶11

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and examined the matter in its entirety, I find that as per high school certificate of the victim, she was aged about 17 years, 03 months and 24 days on the date of the incident and she was near to major and was capable to understand the significance and the morality of the act for which she was consenting with the applicant. In the light of the statement of the victim under Section 164 Cr.P.C. as noted above, possibility of the victim being consenting party with the applicant cannot be ruled out.

¶12

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, this Court is of the opinion that the applicant has made out a case for bail. Hence, the bail application is hereby allowed .

¶13

Let the applicant Mujiburahman , 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:-

¶14

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

¶15

(ii) That the applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any 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 to any police ofÏcer or tamper with the evidence.

¶16

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

¶17

(iv) The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be verified by court concerned.

¶18

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

¶19

Order Date :- 21.4.2023 Shubham

¶20

Digitally signed by :- SHUBHAM KUMAR AGRAHARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Mujiburahman v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mujiburahman 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shyam Lal Gond Vs State of U.P.

Anuj Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Bablu Sahu Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Komil Das Vs State of U.P.

Hakim Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Shani Gautam Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others