Allowed

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

Allahabad HC12 Jan 2024/316/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal Misc. Bail Application allowed. Court refused to express opinion on merits but granted bail due to no criminal history, jail custody since October 2023, and inconsistent victim statements under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. The applicant must execute bond with two sureties of Rs. 25,000 each.

What did the court decide?

Released on bail with personal bonds and two sureties of Rs. 25,000 each.

Aditya Maurya Vs State of U.P. Thru. Its… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:3662

¶2

Court No. - 12

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 316 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Aditya Maurya Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Home, Lucknow And Others Counsel for Applicant :- Bhupendra Veer Singh,Parmanand Gupta Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶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

Supplementary afÏdavit filed today is taken on record.

¶8

No one appears on behalf of the respondent no.2 despite service of notice.

¶9

In terms of the F.I.R., initially a missing person report was lodged. Subsequently, in the statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C., the victim stated that she was beaten up by her brother as such she went on her own free will and sat in a train. Thereafter, she went to Jaipur and thereafter she reached to Khatu Shyam Mandir and thereafter came back to Lucknow. In the statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C., she stated that she knew the applicant for the last one and half years, she had in fact asked the applicant to come with her. Thereafter, she alongwith applicant went to Jaipur. She also alleged to have formed a physical relations with the applicant. The medical on record does not support the statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. The applicant has no criminal history and is in jail since 17.10.2023, hence the applicant may be enlarged on bail.

¶10

Learned A.G.A. also opposed the prayer for bail.

¶11

Considering the said two statements of the victim recorded under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. do not corroborate the prosecution story despite the fact that the age of the victim is 16 and half years based upon documents not provided for

¶12

under the Juvenile Justice Act readwith the rules framed thereunder; the applicant has no criminal history and is languishing in jail since 17.10.2023; and 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.

¶13

Accordingly, the bail application is allowed.

¶14

Let the applicant Aditya Maurya be released on bail in FIR/ Case Crime No.570 of 2023, under Sections 363, 366, 376 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of the POCSO Act, Police Station Gomti Nagar, District Lucknow on his furnishing personal bonds and two reliable sureties of Rs.25,000/- each to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions :-

¶15

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

¶16

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

¶17

(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.

¶18

Order Date :- 12.1.2024/Shukla

¶19

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

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Aditya Maurya v. State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Home, Lucknow 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

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

Rajendra Gupta Third Bail Vs State of U.P.

Babu Ram Mishra Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Lko.

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.

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