Allowed

Shivam Pandey v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Lko. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC22 Jul 2024/2181/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Allahabad High Court allowed bail to the applicant accused of offences under IPC and POCSO Act. The court relied on discrepancies in victim statements and refusal of medical examination, finding no material to suggest bail would harm the trial. The applicant is released on personal bond and sureties.

What did the court decide?

Released on bail on furnishing personal bonds and two reliable sureties of Rs. 20,000/- each.

Shivam Pandey Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home… — Cheque Dishonour | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:49382

¶2

Court No. - 12

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 2181 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Shivam Pandey Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Lko. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Dinesh Kumar Ojha,Anju Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Farhat Jamal Siddiqui

¶5

Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned A.G.A. and perused the record.

¶7

2 . In terms of the FIR allegations were leveled that the daughter of the informant aged about 17 years was coming out of bathroom when the applicant misbehaved with her and when she resisted, injuries were caused to her. In the statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C., the victim reiterated the said version. No allegation of rape was leveled, however, in the statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C., the victim alleged the commission of the offence of rape. The victim as well as the father of the victim have refused to undergo internal examination, even in the statement the victim did not allege the rape, the statement also records that the father of the victim wanted the medical examination by use of pressure on her.

¶8

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

¶9

4. Considering the variance in the statement and the refusal of the victim to undergo medical examination, the statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. is not corroborated. Considering the tentative age of the victim to be 17 years, the applicant who is in custody since 25.09.2023 and has no criminal history is enlarged on bail. and

¶10

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 .

¶11

5. Let the applicant Shivam Pandey be released on bail in FIR/ Case Crime No. 292 of 2023, under Sections 323, 504, 506, 376 IPC and Section 3/4 Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012, Police Station Leelapur, District Pratapgarh, on his furnishing personal bonds and two reliable sureties of Rs.20,000/- each to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:

¶12

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

¶13

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

¶14

(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.

¶15

Order Date :- 22.7.2024 Arun

¶16

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

Shivam Pandey v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Lko. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shivam Pandey v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. 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

Kallu Alias Javed Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko.

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

Lateeq @ Laheek Vs State of U.P. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Raju Vs State of U.P. Thru.Prin.Secy. Home and 3 Others

Rahul Gautam Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Taufeeq Alias Bhaduva Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.