Allowed

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

Allahabad HC17 May 2024/4288/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bench allowed bail to the applicant in a case under IPLC and POCSO. Counsel argued innocence and doubted the version of victim staying with family for years. No medical injury confirmed. Court granted bail subject to strict conditions including no adjournments. Disposed without expressing opinion on merits.

What did the court decide?

Released on bail with personal bond and two reliable sureties on conditions of no adjournments and presence in court.

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

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:37989

¶2

Court No. - 21

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 4288 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Rahul Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Tufail Ahmad,Santosh Kumar Kanaujia Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Jaspreet Singh,J.

¶6

Learned counsel for the A.G.A. has filed the counter-afÏdavit which is taken on record. Learned counsel for the applicant does not wish to file any rejoinder-afÏdavit.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned AGA for the State-respondent.

¶8

By means of the instant bail application, the applicant seeks bail in respect of Case Crime No.431 of 2023, under Sections 363, 366, 344, 376-D, 313, 323, 506 IPC and Section 5g/6 of POCSO Act, relating to Police Station Sadarpur,District Sitapur.

¶9

The submission of the learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the case.

¶10

As per the version contained in the FIR, the victim was said to be minor and was lured and held hostage by the applicant Rahul and his family, where they committed wrongs with the victim, for almost two years. Further it is alleged in the FIR that the victim became pregnant and was induced and forced to abort at a hospital in Mahmudabad, due to which the victim had serious health issues in later days.

¶11

Submission of the learned counsel for the applicant is that both the applicant and the victim reside in neighboring village. It is most improbable that the victim would have resided in the house of

¶12

the applicant Rahul for about 2 years. The allegation that she was kept in captivity is most incredible.

¶13

It is further submitted by the learned counsel that general allegations have been levelled against the applicant, no allegation of rape is stated against the applicant or any co-accused by the victim in her statement before the Investigating OfÏcer under section 161 Cr.P.C. Furthermore the statement of the victim under section 164 Cr.P.C revealed that the victim herself was the consenting party. It is also urged that on 26.12.2023, the victim was produced before the doctor in district women hospital, Sitapur but victim as well as mother of the victim has refused her medical examination, thereafter on 28.12.2023, the radiological report of the victim was prepared and the said report revealed that the victim was 18-19 years. There was no injury found on the body of the victim and medical report does not support the prosecution version.

¶14

The applicant is in jail since 14.03.2024 and there is no criminal history of the applicant. Apart from the fact that the applicant is ready to face trial he has roots in the society and has a stable family and neither he is at flight risk nor in a position to influence any witness or tamper with any evidence and the chargesheet has already been filed.

¶15

Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail, however, could not dispute the aforesaid facts.

¶16

Apparently the version of the victim that she was staying in the house of the co-accused Rahul where his entire family was present and that too for two years and no complaint was made by the family of the victim who are also in neighboring vicinity appears a little doubtful. Moreover in absence of any medical report/evidence of the alleged abortion the allegation would be required to be tested in trial hence at this stage considering the rival submissions, the facts and circumstances of the case and the material available on record as well as considering the nature of allegations and accusation against the applicant, the severity of

¶17

the punishment if convicted and the period of incarceration as well as the fact that no apprehension has been expressed by the learned AGA that the applicant is at the risk of fleeing justice or that he would tamper with evidence or influence any witness, hence, at this stage, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this Court is of the view that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail.

¶18

Let the applicant Rahul involved in FIR/Case Crime No.431 of 2023, under Sections 363, 366, 344, 376-D, 313, 323, 506 IPC and Section 5g/6 of POCSO Act, relating to Police Station Sadarpur, District Sitapur, be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond with two reliable sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned.

¶19

At the time of executing required sureties the following conditions shall be imposed in the interest of justice.

¶20

(i) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law.

¶21

(ii) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufÏcient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶22

(iii) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued and the applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶23

(iv) The applicant shall remain present, in person,

¶24

before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. If in the opinion of the trial court, absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufÏcient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law.

¶25

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.

¶26

Order Date :- 17.5.2024 ank

¶27

Digitally signed by :- ALI NEWAZ KHAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rahul v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. 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

Ram Chadnra Agarwal Vs State of U.P.

Ahsan Afzal Khan @ Raja Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Civil Sectt. Govt. Lko

Ramdev Maurya Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Home Lucknow

Devi Prasad Mishra vs M/S Nayara Energy Limited (Earlier Essar Oil Limited) Thru Auth. Signatory/ Managing Director

Rajendra Prasad vs Dy. Director Consolidation Dist. Sultanpur and 8 Others

Sudheer vs State of U.P. Thru.Prin.Secy. Home Deptt. and 3 Others