Allowed

Mukesh v. State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko and 3 Others

Allahabad HC8 Nov 2024/11671/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court allowed bail to Mukesh accused under offences against women and children. Grant premised on marital status, prosecutrix living with applicant's family, and applicant's undertakings to solemnize marriage and appear in trial.

What did the court decide?

Release on bail with personal bond and sureties. Conditions for solemnizing marriage within one month, registration within fifteen days, and strict adherence to court appearances.

Mukesh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Deptt… — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:73818

¶2

Court No. - 11

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 11671 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Mukesh Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Deptt. Of Home Lko And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Ravindra Shukla Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.

¶6

1. Heard Sri Ravindra Shukla, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Ran Vijay Singh, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State and, Ms. Gudiya Yadav, learned Advocate, who has filed Vakalatnama on behalf of the complainant/ opposite party No.2 and Sri Anil Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel, who has filed short counter affidavit along with Vakalatnama on behalf of the victim. The same are taken on record.

¶7

2. As per learned counsel for the applicant, the present applicant (Mukesh) is languishing in jail since 05.09.2024 in Case Crime No.333 of 2023, under Sections 363, 366 & 376 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, Police Station-Jamo, District-Amethi.

¶8

3. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the present applicant has falsely been implicated in this case as he has not committed any offence as alleged in the prosecution story.

¶9

4. Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that the present applicant has got married with the prosecutrix in one temple and after marriage she is living with the applicant and his family. Even after his arrest on 05.09.2024 the prosecutrix is living with the family members of the applicant. She has not levelled any allegation against the present applicant in any of her statement and has not supported the prosecution case.

¶10

5. Sri Anil Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel for the victim has also supported the aforesaid submission of learned counsel for the applicant referring paras-4 to 6 of the short counter affidavit of the prosecutrix wherein the aforesaid facts have been indicated. Now the prosecutrix is a major lady of 18 years, therefore, she is able to take any decision for her life, as recital to this effect has been given in para-7 of her short counter

¶11

affidavit.

¶12

6. Learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned counsel for the prosecutrix have stated that till date both could not arrange the social marriage but the undertaking has been given on behalf of the applicant and the prosecutrix by their counsels that as soon as the present applicant comes out from the jail, he shall perform social marriage with the proxecutrix within a period of one month, thereafter, both shall get their marriage registered before the Registering Authority.

¶13

7. Learned counsel for the applicant has also submitted that family of the applicant is taking care of the prosecutrix properly and the applicant shall take care of her properly and shall provide all her minimum needs which are required to anyone to live properly.

¶14

8. Learned counsel for the applicant has further stated that the present applicant is having no prior criminal history of any kind whatsoever. He has undertaken on behalf of the present applicant that the applicant shall not misuse the liberty of bail, if so granted by this Court, and shall abide by all terms and conditions of the bail order and shall cooperate with the trial proceedings properly.

¶15

9. Learned counsel for the complainant/ opposite party No.2, Ms. Gudiya Yadav, has submitted that the complainant is father of the prosecutrix is not agreeable for the aforesaid marriage, therefore, she has opposed all the aforesaid submissions made by learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned counsel for the prosecutrix. She has requested for some reasonable time to file the counter affidavit.

¶16

Learned Additional Government Advocate has also opposed the prayer for bail of the present applicant by submitting that since the role of the present applicant was found in the commission of crime, therefore, he is not entitled for grant of bail, but he could not dispute the aforesaid factual contention of learned counsel for the applicant. He has also informed that as per the contents of the Case-Diary the custody of the prosecutrix has been handed over to the grand-father of the applicant on his application.

¶17

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the material available on record; considering the fact that the present applicant and the prosecutrix have got married at one temple and presently the prosecutrix is living with the family members of the present applicant and the undertaking of the present applicant that he shall take care of the prosecutrix as

¶18

his wife and shall solemnize his social marriage with the prosecutrix within a period of one month from the date of release from jail and he shall not misuse the liberty of bail and shall abide by all terms and conditions of the bail order and shall co-operate with the trial proceedings properly, but without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I am of the view that the present applicant may be enlarged on bail.

¶19

12. Accordingly, the instant bail application is allowed.

¶20

13. Let the applicant (Mukesh) be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:-

¶21

(i) As soon as the present applicant is released from jail, he and his family members shall arrange the social marriage of the applicant with the prosecutrix within a period of one month, thereafter, they shall get their marriage registered before the Registering Authority within further period of fifteen days and the present applicant and his family shall look-after the prosecutrix properly, who is his wife, and shall ensure that she could live getting all the required things and if the aforesaid condition is flouted, any appropriate application may be filed by the complainant or the prosecutrix for cancellation of this bail.

¶22

(ii) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law.

¶23

(iii) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 269 of the B.N.S., 2023.

¶24

(iv) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence proclamation under Section 84 of B.N.S.S., 2023 is issued and the applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under Section 208 of the B.N.S., 2023.

¶25

(v) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 351 of B.N.S.S., 2023. If in the opinion of the trial court absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufficient

¶26

cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law. The present applicant shall not leave the country without prior permission of the Court.

¶27

[Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.]

¶28

Order Date :- 8.11.2024 Suresh/

¶29

Digitally signed by :- RAJESH SINGH CHAUHAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Mukesh v. State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mukesh v. State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko 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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Shanti Devi @ Rajkumari @ Rajkumari Vs State of Up through Prin. Secy., Home Govt of Up Lucknow

Nishu Tomar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Irshad Ali Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko

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

Sachin Kumar Yadav @ Sachin Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko and 3 Others

Ram Autar vs Managing Director U.P. Power Corporation Limited Lko. and 3 Others