Allowed

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

Allahabad HC14 Mar 2024/220/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bail application under sections 376-D, 323, 506 IPC and Sections 5(G)/6 POCSO Act. FIR and 161 statement alleged only molestation; rape was first alleged in the 164 statement, uncorroborated by the medical report. Court found allegations improbable and granted bail.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail on furnishing personal bond and two sureties of Rs.20,000/- each with standard conditions.

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

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:22670

¶2

Court No. - 12

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 220 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Irfan Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Govt. U.P. Lko. And Others Counsel for Applicant :- Ajeet Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Ankur Srivastav

¶5

Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J.

¶6

Counter Affidavit filed today is taken on record.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA and perused the record.

¶8

The accused-applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No.508 of 2023 under sections 376-D, 323, 506 IPC and Section 5(G)/6 POCSO Act, P.S. Kotwali Dehat, District Hardoi.

¶9

In terms of the FIR, it was alleged that on 01.09.2023 when the informant had gone to relieve herself, the four accused started misbehaving with her and also caused injuries to her and there were no allegation of any rape being committed, as such, FIR was registered under sections 354, 323, 506 read wit section 7/8 POCSO Act.

¶10

The counsel for the applicant argues that subsequent thereto, a statement was recovered under section 161 Cr.P.C. wherein once again it was alleged that all the four persons had misbehaved with her. It was also stated that the co-accused Zahur and Arif had beaten her which resulted in some injuries in the leg of the informant. Subsequently, however, in the statement under section 164 Cr.P.C., which is at page 51 of the bail application, it was stated that the applicant and one Allarakhha had committed rape on her and the other two persons were holding her.

¶11

In the light of the said, it is argued by the counsel for the applicant that for the first time, the allegations of rape were levelled in the statement under section 164 Cr.P.C. He argues that the co-accused Arif and Zahur who is the father of the applicant and the other accused Allarakhha who was declared as juvenile have been enlarged on bail by different orders. He also draws my attention to the medical report which does not corroborate the allegations under section 164 Cr.P.C.

¶12

Learned AGA opposes the bail application by arguing that a

¶13

specific assertion was made in the statement under section 164 Cr.P.C., as such, the bail application should be rejected. She further argues that the applicant has no parity with the other coaccused who were not assigned the role of commission of rape and no parity can be claimed with Allarakhha who was declared as a juvenile.

¶14

Considering the submissions made at the bar, prima-facie in the FIR and in the statement under section 161 Cr.P.C., there were no allegations of commission of offence of rape, which was improved in the statement under section 164 Cr.P.C., the said statement is not corroborated by the medical on record, further more the statement that the father of the applicant was holding the body and the applicant committed the offence, on the face of it, sound improbable coupled with the fact that the applicant has no criminal history and is in custody since 18.09.2023, the applicant is entitled for the bail. Thus the bail application is allowed.

¶15

Let the applicant Irfan be released on bail in aforesaid first information report number subject to his furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties of Rs.20,000/- (Twenty Thousand) each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:

¶16

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

¶17

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

¶18

(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 officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶19

Order Date :- 14.3.2024 VNP/-

¶20

Digitally signed by :- VISHVANATH PRASAD SHUKLA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Irfan v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Govt. U.P. 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

Amit Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko. and Another

Sachin Shrivastava Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy., Home, Deptt., Lucknow

Rajesh Mishra Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Civil Secrt. Lko.

Kushlesh Dixit Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lucknow

Jagdish Soni Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Deptt., Lko.

Hanif Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and 4 Others