Allowed

Saroj Kumar v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lucknow

Allahabad HC12 Jul 2024/1066/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed bail to the applicant in a POCSO and rape case. The court held that the victim's age determination under Section 94 of the Juvenile Justice Act must be done by the trial court, so the applicant, who has no criminal record, could be released on personal and surety bonds.

What did the court decide?

The applicant released on bail on personal bond and two surety bonds of Rs. 20,000/- each, subject to conditions to attend hearings and not tamper with evidence.

Saroj Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin… — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:47571

¶2

Court No. - 12

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 1066 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Saroj Kumar Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lucknow Counsel for Applicant :- Anurag Singh,Chandan Verma,Praveen Kumar Pandey,Shashank Shekhar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Raghvendra Singh

¶5

Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned A.G.A. and perused the record.

¶7

None appears on behalf of the respondent no.2 despite service of notice.

¶8

Counter afÏdavit filed on behalf of the respondent State is taken on record.

¶9

In terms of the F.I.R., it was stated that the victim aged about 17 years knew the applicant for the last three to four years and on the false pretext of marriage, physical relations were formed in between them and subsequently, when she went to her sister's home on 20.7.2023, it was revealed that she was pregnant. In short, the entire prosecution story was that the physical relations were formed on the false pretext of marriage. A similar statement was given under Section 161 Cr.P.C. The tenteative age of the victim as assessed in the medical examination was 18 years.

¶10

Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that admittedly the relationship between the victim and the applicant continues on the pretext of getting marriage with the applicant. The tentative age of the victim as per the medical examination is found to 18 years. The determination of the tentative age of the victim shall be made by the trial court at the time of trial as per the mandate of Section 94 of the Juvenile Justice Act. Hence, the applicant who is languishing in jail since 31.8.2023 having no criminal history, may be enlarged on bail.

¶11

Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for

¶12

bail.

¶13

Considering the fact that even as per admission of the parties, the relationship in between the applicant and the victim continued over a span of three to four years premised on the false pretext of marriage, and the determination of the tentative age of the victim shall be decided by the trial court at the time of trial as per the mandate of Section 94 of the Juvenile Justice Act; and the applicant is languishing in jail since 31.8.2023 having no criminal history and there is nothing on record to demonstrate that the applicant if enlarged on bail, would in any way adversely affect the trial and without expressing any opinion on merit, I am of the view that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail.

¶14

Accordingly, the application for grant of bail is allowed.

¶15

Let the applicant Saroj Kumar be released on bail in FIR/ Case Crime No.338 of 2023, under Sections 376, 506 I.P.C. and Section 5/6 of the POCSO Act, Police Station Khairabad, District Sitapur on his furnishing personal bonds and two reliable sureties of Rs.20,000/- each to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions :-

¶16

(a) The applicant shall execute a bond to undertake to attend the hearings;

¶17

(b) The applicant shall not commit any offence similar to the offence of which he is accused or suspected of the commission; and

¶18

(c) 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.

¶19

Order Date :- 12.7.2024/Shukla

¶20

Digitally signed by :- ASHUTOSH KUMAR SHUKLA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Saroj Kumar v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lucknow

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Saroj Kumar v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lucknow

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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Rajneesh Kumar @ Rajneesh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko.

Raghuveer Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Govt. Lko.

Suresh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko

Rohit Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. (Home) U.P. Lko.

Surendra Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Sectt. Lko and 3 Others

Rahul Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.