Rajan Singh @ Raunak Singh Vs State of U.P… — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Allahabad HC (2024)

Rajan Singh @ Raunak Singh Vs State of U.P… — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Allahabad HC (2024)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

No anticipatory bail granted. Application dismissed as not pressed; liberty given to file a regular bail application within ten days from receipt of certified copy of the order, to be decided in view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI (order dated 7.10.2021).

Issue for consideration

Whether anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. should be granted to the applicant Rajan Singh @ Raunak Singh in connection with F.I.R. No. 199/2024 (sections 363/366 I.P.C.; Section 16/17 of POCSO Act), P.S. Millarea, district Raibareli.

Court's answer

Taking due consideration of the victim's statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., which alleges the applicant's complicity, and of the learned AGA's submission that proceedings under Section 82 Cr.P.C. had been drawn against the absconding applicant, the court was not inclined to entertain the anticipatory bail application.

Ratio / Principle

The anticipatory bail application was dismissed as not pressed at the request of the applicant's counsel, with liberty to file a regular bail application within ten days from receipt of the certified copy of the order, such regular bail application to be decided in view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation (order dated 7.10.2021).

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Anticipatory Bail Application U/S 438 Cr.P.C. — Rajan Singh @ Raunak Singh v. State of U.P. — The applicant sought anticipatory bail in F.I.R. No. 199/2024 (sections 363/366 I.P.C. and Section 16/17 of POCSO Act), P.S. Millarea, district Raibareli, concerning the alleged enticing away of the informant's minor daughter. The prosecutrix's statement under Section 161 contained no allegation against the applicant, but her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. alleged his complicity. The applicant was absconding; after NBW, a proclamation under section 82 Cr.P.C. had been issued against him on 14.08.2024. On due consideration of the Section 164 statement and the Section 82 proceedings, the court declined to entertain the anticipatory bail application. At counsel's request the application was dismissed as not pressed, with provision that a regular bail application filed within ten days of receipt of the certified copy of the order be decided in view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation and another (Special Leave to Appeal (Cri) No.5191 of 2021, order dated 7.10.2021).

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:57789

Court No. - 14

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 1913 of 2024 Applicant :- Rajan Singh @ Raunak Singh Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lucknow And Others Counsel for Applicant :- Kaushal Tiwari Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

Hon'ble Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.

The present application for anticipatory bail has been filed for protection in regard to F.I.R. No. 199/2024, under sections 363/366 I.P.C. and Section 16/17 of POCSO Act, P.S. Millarea, district Raibareli.

Heard learned counsel for applicant as well as learned Additional Government Advocate for State.

It has been informed that notices to the complainant have been served, even though, none has appeared on behalf of the complainant.

It is alleged in the prosecution case that minor daughter of the informant has been enticed away by the named accused persons along with two other unknown persons.

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the victim in her statement under Section 161 has not made any allegation against the present applicant. In that statement, she has further stated that she went away with co-accused Saurav to Lucknow, from Lucknow to Delhi and from Delhi to Panipat where she stayed in a rented room and after they were left with no money, they returned. The prosecutrix in her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. has alleged the complicity of the present applicant.

Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that the applicant is innocent and he has been falsely implicated. The

statements of the prosecutrix recorded under Section 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. are contradictory and improvement has been made by her while giving statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. There is no other corroborative material in order to show the complicity of the applicant in this case.

Learned AGA has opposed the bail application submitting that the victim is a minor girl. The applicant is absconding. After NBW, proclamation under section 82 Cr.P.C. has been issued against the applicant on 14.08.2024.

On due consideration to the statement of the victim recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. as well as statement of the learned AGA that the proceedings under Section 82 Cr.P.C. have been drawn against the applicant, I am not inclined to entertain the anticipatory bail application of the applicant.

At this stage, applicant's counsel submits that the present application for anticipatory bail may be dismissed as not pressed with liberty to file a regular bail application which may be decided in view of law laid by Supreme Court passed in Special Leave to Appeal (Cri) No.5191 of 2021 "Satender Kumar Antil versus Central Bureau of Investigation and another".

In view of the above, present anticipatory bail application is dismissed as not pressed. It is provided that in case a regular bail application is filed within ten days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order, the same be decided in view of the law laid by by Supreme Court vide order dated 7.10.2021 passed in the case of Satender Kumar Antil (supra).

Order Date :- 23.8.2024

R.C.

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