Allowed

Irshad v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. U.P. Lucknow and 4 Others

Allahabad HC8 Jan 2024/132/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this criminal miscellaneous bail application, the Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench allowed the applicant's bail prayer, noting the victim's contradictory statements and lack of prior criminal record, despite serious charges including POCSO and kidnapping.

What did the court decide?

Applicant Irshad released on bail on furnishing personal bonds and two reliable sureties of Rs.25,000/- each.

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

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:1836

¶2

Court No. - 12

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 132 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Irshad Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. U.P. Lucknow And 4 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Ravi Verma,Ajit Kumar Nishad,Pawan Kumar Nigam Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned A.G.A. and perused the record. None turned up on behalf of the informant despite notice.

¶7

2 . In terms of the F.I.R., it was alleged that the daughter of the informant was enticed by the applicant. The F.I.R., itself alleges that the daughter of the informant used to roam with the applicant despite counseling, the applicant did not improve his conduct. A missing person report was lodged, subsequently, in the statement of the victim recorded under Sections 161 & 164 Cr.P.C., the victim did not support the prosecution version and stated that she was in love with the applicant and nothing wrong was done. In the statement of the victim recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., the fact with regard to the physical relation was also accepted. There is no categorical prove on record with regard to the age of the victim, which is to be determined at the time of trial in view of the law laid down in the case of Monish Vs. State of U.P. passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 55026 of 2021 decided on 09.02.2023.

¶8

3. Learned A.G.A. opposed the bail prayer.

¶9

4. Considering the two statements of the victim on record not supporting the prosecution story

¶10

coupled with the fact that the applicant has no criminal history and is in custody since 25.06.2023 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. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed .

¶11

5. Let the applicant Irshad be released on bail in FIR/ Case Crime No. 0257 of 2023, under Sections 363, 366, 506, 376 IPC and Section 3/4 POCSO Act, Police Station Ashiyana, District Lucknow East (Commissionerate Lucknow) on his furnishing personal bonds and two reliable sureties of Rs.25,000/- each to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:

¶12

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

¶13

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

¶14

(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.

¶15

Order Date :- 8.1.2024 Arun

¶16

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

Irshad v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. U.P. Lucknow and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Irshad v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. U.P. Lucknow and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Chhote Lal Lodhi Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home Lko. and 3 Others

Hajari Kuldeep Alias Hajari Kureel Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Govt. U.P. Lucknow and 3 Others

Shivam Shukla Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Civil Sectt. Lko

Dheeraj Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 3 Others

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

Sunil Sharma Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Civil Sectt. Lko.