Allowed

Rahul v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Others

Allahabad HC19 Feb 2024/1566/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the bail application of an applicant charged under sections of the IPC and POCSO Act, citing delay in FIR registration, lack of corroborative evidence, and the absence of criminal antecedents as grounds for enlargement on bail.

What did the court decide?

Release on bail by furnishing personal bond and two sureties with conditions regarding non-tampering with evidence and court attendance.

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

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:14491

¶2

Court No. - 14

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 1566 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Rahul Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And Others Counsel for Applicant :- Smriti Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA for the State and perused the record. None appears on behalf of the complainant.

¶7

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that earlier the same complainant lodged an FIR against the applicant under Section 363 IPC which was registered as case crime No. 65/2023. In that case, final report was filed by the police. The victim was a consenting party.

¶8

It has been further submitted that now again regarding the incident which took place on 10.5.2023, vide application through 156(3) Cr.P.C., FIR has been lodged on 14.08.2023 after a delay of several months. The applicant has been falsely implicated. There is no corroborative evidence to support the prosecution case except the statement of the victim. The applicant is languishing in jail since 26.08.2023 without having any criminal antecedent.

¶9

It is further submitted that there is no possibility of the applicant of fleeing away after being released from jail or tampering with the witnesses. In case the applicant is enlarged on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶10

Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the aforesaid facts as argued by the learned counsel for the applicant.

¶11

On due consideration to the statement of the complainant; delay in lodging the FIR; age of the victim in the ossification test, coupled with the fact that the applicant is languishing in jail since 26.08.2023 without having any criminal antecedent and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I find it to be a fit case for enlarging the applicant on bail.

¶12

Accordingly, the bail application is allowed.

¶13

Let the applicant, Rahul, involved in Case Crime/FIR No. 309/2023, under Sections 376(3)/452/506 IPC and Section 3/4(2) of POCSO Act Police Station - Pali, District - Hardoi, be released on bail 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 which are being imposed in the interest of justice:-

¶14

(i) The applicant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.

¶15

(ii) The applicant will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness.

¶16

(iii) 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

(iv) 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.

¶18

(v) 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 229-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶19

(vi) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. 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 174-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶20

Order Date :- 19.2.2024 R.C.

¶21

Digitally signed by :- RAM CHANDER YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Rahul v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rahul v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home 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

Pagula Devi @ Sukhraji Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko.

Ashok Kumar Yadav Vs State of U.P. Thru Prin.Secy. Home

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

Imamul Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and 3 Others

Sunil Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Civil Sectt. Lko

Shakeel Ahmed Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko.