Allowed

Mohd. Ashraf v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC24 Apr 2024/1717/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 1717 of 2024 where the applicant sought release in a case involving IPC sections and POCSO. The court, noting bald allegations and lack of prejudice to trial, allowed bail subject to conditions and sureties.

What did the court decide?

Released on bail by executing a personal bond and providing two sureties of Rs. 20,000/- each.

Mohd. Ashraf Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko… — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:32102

¶2

Court No. - 12

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 1717 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Mohd. Ashraf Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Bahar Ali 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. No one appears on behalf of the complainant despite service of notice.

¶7

2 . This is the second bail application. The first bail application filed on behalf of the applicant was dismissed as not pressed vide order dated 20.09.2023.

¶8

3 . While arguing the second bail application, the counsel for the applicant argues that in terms of the FIR, it was alleged that the daughter of the informant was enticed away by the applicant and one Bablu around 15 days ago, subsequently it was stated that they would leave her after six months. The FIR was lodged on 25.07.2019 subsequently the victim gave her statement under Section 161 Cr.P.c.,, wherein she stated that the applicant as well as Bablu had taken her by use of force and by use of force she was got married to Bablu. She also stated that on 02.03.2020 she was recovered from the home of the applicant and Bablu. Subsequently in the statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C., she stated that she used to work as a labourer in the Medical College and she was taken by the applicant and the other coaccused. She also stated that both of them had committed wrong on her. A similar statement was

¶9

also given before the Medical authorities, however, the medical on record did not support any allegation of any wrong doing as no injury was observed on the body of the victim, which was done on 02.03.2020. The counsel for the applicant draws my attention to the statement of the victim recorded during trial wherein not only did she make allegation against the two accused, she also made allegation against the father of the applicant of having committed wrong on her. She also stated that she was forcefully married one of the coaccused Bablu. Later on in her cross-examination, she could not even tell where the co-accused Bablu was residing, she could not support the earlier statement made during trial as is evident from the cross examination which is on record. There is no definite document to conclusively determine the age of the victim at this stage in the terms of the mandate of Section 94 of the Juvenile Justice Act.

¶10

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

¶11

5. Considering the allegation to be bald and also considering the fact that the victim stayed with the applicant for the substantial period of time coupled with the fact that the applicant has no criminal history and is in custody since 02.03.2020 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 .

¶12

6. Let the applicant Mohd. Ashraf be released on bail in FIR/ Case Crime No. 266 of 2019, under Sections 363, 366, 376-D, 323 IPC, Section 3(2)V SC/ST Act and Section 5(g/6 POCSO Act, Police Station Chowk, District Lucknow, on his furnishing personal bonds and two reliable sureties of Rs.20,000/- each to the satisfaction of the court

¶13

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 ofÏcer or tamper with the evidence.

¶17

Order Date :- 24.4.2024 Arun

¶18

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

Mohd. Ashraf v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohd. Ashraf v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. 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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Pyare Lal Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Sectt. Lko

Dinesh Kumar Gupta @ D.K. Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

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

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

Dheerendra Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lucknow and Others

Bitto Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home, Govt. U.P. Lko.