Allowed

Raju v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home, Lko. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC21 Jun 2024/3737/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This criminal miscellaneous bail application was filed by Raju against an FIR alleging misbehavior. The court found that the initial FIR did not allege rape under Section 376 IPC and that the medical report of a fresh torn hymen dated ten days post-incident could not be correlated to the alleged date. Considering the lack of prima facie case for rape and the applicant's clean record, bail was gran

What did the court decide?

The applicant Raju be released on bail in relation to FIR/Case Crime No. 414 of 2022 (Sections 354 IPC and POCSO Act, later altered to 376 IPC and 3/4 POCSO Act) on furnishing personal bonds and two s

Raju Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home, Lko… — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:43876

¶2

Court No. - 11

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 3737 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Raju Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home, Lko. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Chandra Bhanu Singh,Anita Singh,Suman Lata Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Akash Sharma,Ms. Vaishnavi Awasthi,Satish Kumar Misra

¶5

Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned A.G.A. and perused the record. None turned up on behalf of the complainant despite service of notice.

¶7

2 . In terms of the FIR lodged on 31.12.2022, it was alleged that the daughter of the informant had gone to the agricultural field, when the applicant allegedly misbehaved with her and touched her inappropriately. In terms of the said report, medical was done on 01.01.2023, wherein no external injury was seen on the body of the victim. The statement of the victim was recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., wherein she reiterated the FIR version and did not allege the commission of the offence under Section 376 IPC. The allegation in the FIR pertains to the alleged misconduct which took place on 24.12.2022, subsequently, on 03.01.2023 medical examination of the victim was done, wherein before the Medical OfÏcer the victim alleged the commission of the offence under Section 376 IPC. The medical on record indicates that hymen was torn (fresh). The statement of the victim was recorded on 04.01.2023, wherein she stated that wrong was committed on her without disclosing the date on which the wrong was committed.

¶8

3 . In the light of the said, the submission of the counsel for the applicant is that the incident was said to have occurred on 24.12.2022, without explaining the delay, the FIR was lodged on 31.12.2022 in which no allegation of rape was leveled. The supplementary medical of the victim conducted on 03.01.2023 after about ten days of the alleged incident could not have indicative that the hymen was fresh torn, as such, according to her, the medical report would have to be corelated to the some other incident. The tentative age of the victim is around 16 years 11 months and 23 days on the date of the incident.

¶9

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

¶10

5. Considering the fact that prima facie the medical report dated 03.01.2023 cannot be corelated to the offence which allegedly took place on 24.12.2022 and the finding that in the FIR and the statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. no allegation of rape was leveled, a case for bail is made out. The applicant who is custody since 01.01.2023 having no criminal history is enlarged on bail. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed .

¶11

6. Let the applicant Raju be released on bail in FIR/ Case Crime No. 414 of 2022, under Section 354 IPC and Section 7/8 POCSO Act later on altered in under Section 376 IPC and Section 3/4 POCSO Act, Police Station Nasirabad, District Raebareli, 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 :- 21.6.2024 Arun

¶16

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

Raju v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home, Lko. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Raju v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Indrapal Chaurasiya Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Umesh Gupta Vs State of U.P Thru. Secy. Home Deptt. Civil Secrt. Lko. and 3 Others

Ankit Saroj Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. U.P. Lko. and 3 Others

Rohit Bind vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home, Lko. and Others

Juvenile X, Thru. His Guradian/Uncle vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko

Sachin Sonkar vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko.