Allowed

Chandan Rastogi v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC2 Apr 2024/3378/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge Court granted bail to Chandan Rastogi in a criminal case involving kidnapping, abductions, and POCSO charges. The court noted inconsistencies in the victim's statement and co-accused bail status, allowing release on bond and sureties with standard conditions.

What did the court decide?

Released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties subject to conditions regarding tampering with evidence and appearance in court.

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

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:27116

¶2

Court No. - 19

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 3378 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Chandan Rastogi Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And 3 Others

¶5

Counsel for Applicant :- Sudhaker Prakash,Amit Bhardwaj Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶6

Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,J.

¶7

Heard Sri Amit Bhardwaj, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Puneet Kumar Yadav, the learned State Counsel and perused the records.

¶8

This application of the applicant seeking his release on bail in Case Crime No. 121 of 2023, under Sections 342, 363, 366, 368, 376 IPC & 3/4 POCSO Act, Police Station Mitauli, District Lakhimpur Kheri.

¶9

The aforesaid case has been registered on the basis of an FIR lodged on 15.03.2023 against one Sabir alleging that the named accused had enticed away the complainant's minor daughter.

¶10

In the statement of the victim recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., she stated that she used to talk to the applicant through phone; the applicant had told her that her wife could not bear children; that he left the victim and wanted to marry her and the victim herself had called the applicant to take her with him. She further stated that she has entered into a court marriage with the applicant and thereafter has made physical with her consent. Before the doctor who conducted the victim's medico legal examination, the victim gave similar statement. However, before the Magistrate, while recording her statement before the

¶11

Magistrate under Section 164 Cr.P.C., the victim did not name the applicant.

¶12

A supplementary affidavit has been filed on behalf of the applicant disclosing his involvement in seven cases and he has been granted bail in all those cases.

¶13

Co-accused Suhana has been granted bail by means of an order dated 08.08.2023 passed by this Court in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 9980 of 2023.

¶14

The learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail but he could not dispute the aforesaid aspects of the matter.

¶15

Having considered the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that the aforesaid facts are sufficient for making out a case for enlargement of the applicant on bail in the aforesaid crime.

¶16

Accordingly, this bail application stands allowed .

¶17

Let the applicant- Chandan Rastogi be released on bail in the aforesaid case on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of magistrate/court concerned, subject to following conditions:-

¶18

(i) the applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence;

¶19

(ii) the applicant shall not pressurize the prosecution witnesses; (iii) the applicant shall appear on each and every date fixed by the trial court, unless his appearance is exempted by the learned trial court.

¶20

Order Date :- 2.4.2024 Pradeep/-

¶21

Digitally signed by :- PRADEEP SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Chandan Rastogi v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chandan Rastogi v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home 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

M/S Accel Frontline Ltd. Thru Sanjeev Agrawal Manager Accnt. Vs the Prescribed Authority Minimum Wages Act 1948 and Others

Kailash and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Revenue Lko. and 4 Others

Chandra Bhushan Dubey Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. (Home), Lko.

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

Ali Abbas Jafri Vs Ditectorate of Enforcement (Allahabad Sub Zonal Office) Allahabad

Hareram Shukla Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.