Allowed

Jaswant v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. U.P. Lko.

Allahabad HC21 Feb 2024/1974/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bail application under Sections 363, 366, 368, 120-B IPC for enticement of a minor girl. Court noted discrepancy in the prosecutrix's age, absence of allegations against the applicant in her statements, clean medical reports, no criminal antecedents, and charge sheet filed. Bail was allowed with conditions.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail on personal bond with two sureties, subject to conditions on evidence-tampering, cooperation in trial, and no criminal activity.

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

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:15574

¶2

Court No. - 15

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 1974 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Jaswant Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. U.P. Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Surya Prakash Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Mohd. Faiz Alam Khan,J.

¶6

Learned AGA informs that he has procured complete instructions in the matter including upto date case diary and charge sheet in this case has already been submitted.

¶7

Heard Shri Surya Prakash, learned counsel for the accused/applicant as well as learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶8

This bail application has been moved by the accused/applicant- Jaswant for grant of bail, in Case Crime No. 148/2023, under Section 363, 366, 368, 120-B IPC, Police Station Majhgai, District Lakhimpur Kheri, during trial.

¶9

Learned counsel for the accused-applicant while pressing the bail application submits that it is a case of false implication. The FIR of this case has been lodged by the mother of the victim alleging therein that the applicant has enticed away her daughter aged about 16 years with the help of other accused persons and she has also taken with her some cash and jewellery. However, it was on 10.1.2024 the prosecutrix was recovered and her statements under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. was recorded thereafter.

¶10

It is further submitted that neither in the statement of the prosecutrix recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. nor in her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. she has imputed any allegation against the applicant and has stated to have left her home on her own and also that she has solemnized marriage with the applicant but has further stated that no consumption has taken place between them.

¶11

It is further submitted that medical reports of the victim are clean. She has disclosed her age in her statements recorded under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. as 18 years while as per her

¶12

educational credentials her age is coming 16 years 7 months and two days. Thus she was having sufficient intellect to understand her welfare and since she had left her home herself, no offence in fact has been committed by the applicant.

¶13

It is further submitted that the applicant is in jail in this case since 18.01.2024 and he is not having any criminal antecedent and there is no apprehension that the accused-applicant after release on bail, may flee from the process of law or may otherwise misuse the liberty. Charge sheet in this case has already been submitted.

¶14

Learned A.G.A. on the other hand submits that the applicant is accused of committing an heinous offence, therefore, he is not entitled to be released on bail.

¶15

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the record, it is reflected from the record that the age of the prosecutrix as per her educational credentials is 16 years 7 months and two days at the date and time of the incident. The prosecutrix in her statements recorded under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. has stated her age to be of 18 years, thus there is discrepancy so far as the age of the prosecutrix is concerned and the same would be determined/ adjudicated by the trial court, during the course of the trial. Admittedly, no allegation of any kind has been levelled by the prosecutrix in her statements recorded under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. The age of the applicant is also shown as 28 years. The medical reports of the prosecutrix are clean. The applicant is in jail in this case since 18.01.2024 and he is not having any criminal history. Charge sheet in this case has already been submitted. His presence may be secured before the trial court by placing adequate conditions.

¶16

Keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, severity of punishment, submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and without expressing any opinion on the merits and demerits of the case, I am of the considered view that applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed.

¶17

Let the applicant- Jaswant involved in the aforesaid case be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions:-

¶18

(i) The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence by intimidating/pressurizing the witnesses, during the investigation or trial.

¶19

(ii) The applicant shall cooperate in the trial sincerely without seeking any adjournment.

¶20

(iii) The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal activity or commission of any crime after being released on bail.

¶21

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.

¶22

Identity, status and residence proof of the applicant and sureties be verified by the court concerned before the bonds are accepted.

¶23

Observations made herein-above are only for the purpose of disposal of bail application and the same shall not have any bearing on the trial of the case.

¶24

Order Date :- 21.2.2024 Muk

¶25

Digitally signed by :- MOHD UMAR KHAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Jaswant v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. U.P. Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jaswant v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. U.P. Lko.

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

Indrajeet Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Jai Prakash Vs State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Civil Secrt. Lko.

Mayank Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Jaswant vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. U.P. Lko.

Pankaj K Singh @ Pankaj Kumar Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy./Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 2 Others

Dharamveer Vs the State of U.P. Thru. Prin.Secy. Dept. of Home