Allowed

Radheshyam @ Kariya v. State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Civil Secrt. Lko. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC2 Jul 2024/4287/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge allowed bail to the applicant, an accused in kidnapping, abduction and POCSO charges, citing lack of criminal history, conflicting victim statements regarding enticement, and the victim's tentative age being a juvenile.

What did the court decide?

Released on bail on furnishing personal bonds and sureties of Rs. 20,000/- each.

Radheshyam @ Kariya Vs State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home… — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:44982

¶2

Court No. - 12

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 4287 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Radheshyam @ Kariya Opposite Party :- State Of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Civil Secrt. Lko. And 3 Others

¶5

Counsel for Applicant :- Mahesh Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶6

Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned A.G.A. and perused the 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 alleging therein that the daughter of the informant was enticed away by the applicant. Subsequently, in the statements under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C., the victim did not support the prosecution story rather she stated that as she was abused by her sister, she ran alongwith the applicant and thereafter they went to Delhi.

¶10

Learned counsel for the applicant argued that there is no definite document with regard to the age of the victim which can be ascertained at the time of trial under the Juvenile Justice Act readwith the rules framed thereunder. The applicant has no criminal history and is in jail since 25.1.2024, hence the applicant may be enlarged on bail.

¶11

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

¶12

Considering the fact that the tentative age of the victim is around 17 years and the two statements of the victim recorded under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. which do not corroborate the prosecution story coupled with the fact that the

¶13

applicant has no criminal history and is languishing in jail since 25.1.2024; 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.

¶14

Accordingly, the bail application is allowed.

¶15

Let the applicant Radheshyam @ Kariya be released on bail in FIR/ Case Crime No.06 of 2024, under Sections 363, 366, 376 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of the POCSO Act, Police Station Malhipur, District Shravasti 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 :-

¶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 ofÏcer or tamper with the evidence.

¶19

Order Date :- 2.7.2024/Shukla

¶20

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

Radheshyam @ Kariya v. State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Civil Secrt. Lko. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Radheshyam @ Kariya v. State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Civil Secrt. 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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Dinesh Kumar Gautam Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Deptt.

Chhotkann (Major B.C.) Vs State of U.P. Thru Prin.Secy. Home Lucknow and Anothers

Sumit Yadav Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 3 Others

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

Sandeep Kumar vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Others

Raj Kumar @ Raju vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home Civil Secrt. Lko.