Allowed

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

Allahabad HC21 Feb 2024/438/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this criminal bail application, the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench, allowed the bail application of the accused. The court considered discrepancies in victim statements, lack of medical evidence, and delay in FIR while granting bail subject to strict conditions.

What did the court decide?

The applicant was released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties subject to conditions against tampering with evidence and witnesses.

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

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:15470

¶2

Court No. - 14

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 438 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Raju

¶5

Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And Others Counsel for Applicant :- Sachin Verma,Ashish Kumar Maurya,Hari Om Tiwari,Praveen Kumar Pandey,Rahul Singh,Shivam Tiwari,Vikas Vikram Singh

¶6

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶7

Hon'ble Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.

¶8

1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State and perused the record. None appears for the informant.

¶9

2. It is alleged in the prosecution case that minor daughter of the informant Kavita aged about 16 years has been enticed away by the applicant with the aid of his two brothers on 19.8.2022 and raped by him and further threatened not to make complaint of this incident to any one.

¶10

3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the victim in her statement under section 161 CrPC has stated that she was enticed away by all the three brothers, including the applicant. While giving statement under section 164 CrPC, she made improvement and stated that she was abducted. There is no corroborative medical evidence. No injury has been found on the internal or external examination of the victim. The radiological age of the victim is 17-18 years. There is no explanation of 26 days delay in lodging the first information report. The applicant has been falsely implicated. The applicant has explained the criminal history of one case. The applicant is in jail since 4.10.2022.

¶11

It is further submitted that there is no possibility of the applicant of fleeing away after being released on bail or

¶12

tampering with the witnesses. In case the applicant is enlarged on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶13

4. Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the aforesaid facts as argued by the learned counsel for the applicant.

¶14

5. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, variations in the statements of the victim under section 161 and 164 CrPC, lack of corroborative evidence, delay in lodging the first information report, arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties, the period for which the applicant is in jail and without expressing any opinion on the merit of the case, I find it to be a fit case for enlarging the applicant on bail.

¶15

6. Let the applicant Raju, involved in Case Crime No.489 of 2022 under sections 363, 366, 376, 504, 506 I.P.C., 3/4 POCSO Act, P.S. Salon, district Raebareli, be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions which are being imposed in the interest of justice:-

¶16

(i) The applicant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.

¶17

(ii) The applicant will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness.

¶18

(iii) 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 officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶19

(iv) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence

¶20

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

(v) 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 sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶22

(vi) 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

7. The application is allowed accordingly.

¶24

Order Date :- 21.2.2024 kkb/

¶25

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

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Raju v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. 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

Similar cases

Saurabh Alias Sajan Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko. and Others

Alok Kumar Tripathi Vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Addl. Chief Secy. Dept. of Home, Lko

Susheel Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko

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

Nirmal Das @ Govind Vs State of U.P. Thru Prin.Secy. Home Lko and Ors.

Suraj Vs State of U.P. Thru. Civil Secy. Lko. and 3 Others