Allowed

Chhotelal v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home, Lko. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC3 Jan 2024/1535/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a bail application involving allegations of abduction and sexual offences under IPC and POCSO, the court observed a variance in victim statements. With no criminal antecedents and the applicant having spent over a year in custody, the court allowed bail on furnishing bonds and sureties.

What did the court decide?

Release on bail via personal bond and two reliable sureties of Rs.25,000/- each.

Chhotelal Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home… — Narcotics (NDPS) | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:326

¶2

Court No. - 12

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 1535 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Chhotelal Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home, Lko. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Ajeet Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J.

¶6

1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned A.G.A. and perused the record. Despite service of notice, no one appears on behalf of the complainant.

¶7

2 . In terms of the FIR, a missing person report was lodged alleging that the applicant had come to the home of the informant and went along with her elder daughter. While going on, he also took away ornaments and certain amounts kept in the house. In the statement under Section 161 of Cr.P.C., the victim disclosed her age as 18 years. She also stated that her mother had fixed her marriage with the applicant. Subsequently the applicant refused to marry on account of non-fulfillment of demand of dowry of Rs.50,000/- which was refused. She also stated that thereafter she went along with the applicant. She had not taken any ornaments and nothing wrong was done with her by the applicant, however, in the statement under Section 164 of Cr.P.C., she stated that she was alone at home when the applicant had taken her to the maternal uncle's home and she wanted to come back, however, the applicant did not allow her to come back. She also stated that she called her parents on telephone. She also levelled allegations of rape against the applicant.

¶8

3 . The Counsel for the applicant argues that in the medico legal examination of the victim conducted on 16.04.2022, she had herself stated that she had gone with the applicant out of her own freewill and she stayed with the applicant 4-5 days. No injury was reported in the medical examination.

¶9

4 . The Counsel for the applicant also draws my attention to the statement recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. wherein it was stated that a talk with regard to the marriage of the victim and the applicant was going on, which could not be finalized as the victim was minor, however, the applicant and the victim eloped

¶10

from home. He further argues that there is no allegation of any forceful conduct against the applicant. The applicant has no criminal antecedents and is in custody since 15.05.2022.

¶11

5. Learned A.G.A. vehemently opposed the bail prayer.

¶12

6. Considering the variance in the statements under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. and Section 164 of Cr.P.C. coupled with the fact that the statement before medico legal experts is in consonance with the statement under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. coupled with the fact that the applicant has spent one and a half year in the custody; the applicant has no criminal antecedents and is in custody since 15.05.2022 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 .

¶13

7. Let the applicant Chhote Lal be released on bail in FIR/ Case Crime No.259 of 2022, under Sections 363, 366, 376, 323, 506 IPC and Section 3/4 of POCSO Act, Police Station Ramnagar, District Barabanki 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:

¶14

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

¶15

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

¶16

(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.

¶17

Order Date :- 3.1.2024 akverma

¶18

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

Chhotelal v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home, Lko. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chhotelal v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. 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

Similar cases

Manvendra Pal Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Home, Lko.

Vinod Pal Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home, Lko.

Mukesh Singh @ Dabbu Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Deptt. Home Lko.

Dilip and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home Civil Secrt. Lko.

Shrawan Alias Gola Vs State of U.P. Thru.Prin.Secy. Home and 3 Others

Riyaz Ahmad S/O Shaukat Ali Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy Home and 3 Others