Allowed

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

Allahabad HC20 Feb 2023BAIL/6036/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this bail application, the Allahabad High Court evaluated the request for release on bail for an accused facing charges under IPC and POCSO. The court considered counsel arguments regarding the victim's age and consensual nature of the relationship before granting bail with standard conditions.

What did the court decide?

Released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two heavy sureties.

Amit Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Court No. - 83

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 6036 of 2023

¶3

Applicant :- Amit Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Dhiraj Kumar Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Dileep Kumar Singh

¶4

Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.

¶5

List has been revised.

¶6

Learned A.G.A. has informed that the notice has been served to the informant on 04.03.2023.

¶7

Heard Shri Dhiraj Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant, Shri Dileep Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the informant and Ms. Beena Mishra, learned counsel for the Samiti as well as Shri V.K.S. Parmar, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶8

Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No.343 of 2022, under Sections 363, 336, 376 I.P.C. & Section 3/4 of POCSO Act, Police Station Rampur Maniharan, District Saharanpur, during the pendency of trial.

¶9

As per prosecution story, the applicant is stated to have enticed away the minor daughter of the informant between 3/4.10.2022.

¶10

Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that the applicant is absolutely innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. The FIR is delayed by one day and there is no explanation of the said delay caused. The victim is a consenting party. To buttress his arguments, learned counsel has placed much reliance on the statement of the victim recorded u/s 164 Cr.P.C., whereby she has stated that she had gone with the applicant out of her own sweet will and had married him and had entered into corporeal relationship with him out of her own sweet will and wants to live with him during her future life. The victim is major. Several other submissions have been made on behalf of the applicant to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against him. The circumstances which, as per counsel, led to the false implication of the applicant have also been touched upon at length. There is no criminal history of the applicant. The applicant is languishing in jail since 14.10.2022. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the

¶11

liberty of bail.

¶12

Per contra, learned A.G.A., learned counsel for the informant and the counsel for the Samiti have vehemently opposed the bail application on the ground that as per school leaving certificate, the date of birth of the victim was 15.10.2004 rendering it 12 days less than the age of majority.

¶13

In rebuttal, learned counsel for the applicant has placed much reliance on the settled case law of the Apex Court in Sushil Kumar vs. Rakesh Kumar, (2003) 8 SCC 673 , wherein it has been stated that it is more often in the Indian Society that person shows the age of their wards much below than their actual age.

¶14

POCSO was formulated to protect children under the age of 18 years from sexual exploitation. Nowadays, more often than not it has become a tool for their exploitation. The Act was never meant to criminalise consensual romantic relationships between adolescents. However, this has to be seen from the facts and circumstances of each case.

¶15

''The factum of consensual relationship borne out of love should be of consideration while granting bail because it would amount to perversity of justice if the statement of victim was ignored and accused was left to suffer behind jail".

¶16

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, the evidence on record, and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed.

¶17

Let the applicant- Amit involved in aforementioned case crime number be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two heavy sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions.

¶18

(i) The applicant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.

¶19

(ii). The applicant will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness.

¶20

(iii) The applicant will appear before the trial court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted.

¶21

(iv) The applicant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which he is accused, or suspected of the commission

¶22

of which he is suspected.

¶23

(v) 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 officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶24

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail. Identity, status and residence proof of the applicant and sureties be verified by the court concerned before the bonds are accepted.

¶25

It is made clear that observations made in granting bail to the applicant shall not in any way affect the learned trial Judge in forming his independent opinion based on the testimony of the witnesses.

¶26

Order Date :- 20.2.2023 Ravi Kant

¶27

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

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Amit 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

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Udal Bind @ Rudal Bind @ Vikas Bind Vs State of U.P.

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

Sovendra Singh Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Gaurav Yadav Vs State of U.P.

Samasveer @ Samsu Vs State of U.P.

Jyoti Vs State of U.P.