Allowed

Shiva @ Shivam v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko. and Others

Allahabad HC16 Jan 2024/244/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court allowed the bail application of the accused in a case involving IPC 376-D, 506, and POCSO charges. Relying on variances in victim statements, lack of specific allegations against the applicant in earlier statements, the belated registration of the FIR, and the existence of a non-recurring injury, the judge held the accused entitled to bail on personal bond and sureties.

What did the court decide?

Accused Shiva @ Shivam released on bail on personal bond and two sureties of Rs. 25,000 each.

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

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:4346

¶2

Court No. - 12

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 244 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Shiva @ Shivam Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko. And Others Counsel for Applicant :- Rajeev Kumar Mishra Rudra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA and perused the record. No one appears for the informant despite notice.

¶7

The accused-applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No.0840 of 2023 under sections 363, 376-D, 506 IPC, and section 3/4 POCSO Act, P.S. Dewa, District Barabanki.

¶8

In terms of the FIR, it was alleged that the daughter of the informant aged about 17 years had allegedly allured by one Akash and have taken to Indira Dam in a car, which was being driven by the applicant and on the back seat of the car, allegedly the offence under section 376 IPC was done. As against the applicant, it was alleged that the applicant was exhorting the other co-accused to commit the offence in question.

¶9

In the statement under section 161 Cr.P.C., the victim alleged that Akash had committed the offence in question and the applicant was assigned the role of driving the car. No allegations of rape were alleged against the applicant, however, in the statement under section 164 Cr.P.C., the allegations of rape were alleged against the applicant also. The medical report on record, prima-facie do not indicate any injury. The statement of the informant is also on record wherein she stated that she had come to know of the incident after about one and a half months. The FIR was also registered after one and a half months of the alleged incident.

¶10

Considering the variance in the statements under sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. coupled with the fact that apart from the statement under section 164, there is no averment so as to link the applicant with the offence in question and the fact that the FIR was registered after about one and a half month and the applicant has criminal history and is in jail since 21.10.2023, the applicant is entitled for the bail. Thus the bail application is allowed.

¶11

Let the applicant Shiva @ Shivam be released on bail in

¶12

aforesaid first information report number subject to his furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties of Rs.25000/- (Twenty Five Thousand) each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:

¶13

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

¶14

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

¶15

(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.

¶16

Order Date :- 16.1.2024 VNP/-

¶17

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

Shiva @ Shivam v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko. and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shiva @ Shivam v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, 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

Aditya Maurya Vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Home, Lucknow and Others

Kalichand Vs the State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home, Lko. and Others

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

Arjun Vs State of U.P. Thru. the Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home, Lko. and Others

Mohammad Imran Vs Narcotics Control Bureau Lucknow

Sanjay Kumar Yadav @ Sanju Yadav Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Deptt. Home Affairs Lko. and 3 Others