Allowed

Salamat Ali v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Others

Allahabad HC18 Jun 2024/1473/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

AHC-LKO allowed bail to the applicant in a missing girl/POCSO case. The High Court relied on the victim's statement admitting a love affair and the applicant's clean record, granting bail subject to bonds and sureties.

What did the court decide?

Applicant enlarged on bail by furnishing personal bonds and two sureties of Rs. 20,000 each, undertaking to appear in court and not tamper with evidence.

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

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:43290

¶2

Court No. - 11

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 1473 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Salamat Ali Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. And Others Counsel for Applicant :- Pawan Kumar Sharma 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.

¶7

2 . The FIR in question was lodged as a missing person report alleging that the daughter of the informant was enticed away by the applicant. In the statement of the victim recorded under section 164 Cr.P.C., the victim did not support the prosecution story and she admitted that she was having love affair withe applicant, however, she stated that while she was going, her brother caught her and brought her back and as the family members were not willing to marry the victim with the applicant, she had gone out of her own free will.

¶8

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

¶9

4. In view of the said statement, the applicant who is in custody since 29.09.2023 and has no criminal history is enlarged on bail. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed .

¶10

5. Let the applicant Salamat Ali be released on bail in FIR/ Case Crime No.398 of 2023, under Sections 363, 366(A), 376 IPC and Section 3/4 POCSO Act, Police Station Khairighat, District Bahraich, 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:

¶11

(a) The applicant shall execute a bond to undertake to

¶12

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 officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶15

Order Date :- 18.6.2024 Arun

¶16

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

Salamat Ali v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Salamat Ali v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and 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

Mohd. Rafeek vs the State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. and 3 Others

Shahanshah vs State of U.P Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and 3 Others

Akeel Shah vs Union of India Thru. Ncb Mahanagar Lko.

Anshu Rajpoot Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Maroof vs Union of India Thru. Intelligence Officer N.C.B Lko.

Arif @ Asif vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another