Allowed

Ayan Ansari v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy., Home Deptt., Lucknow and Others

Allahabad HC22 Jul 2024/5199/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Allahabad High Court allowed a bail application under POCSO Act and IPC. The court considered the victim's age discrepancy and the applicant's clean record, granting bail with personal and two monetary sureties.

What did the court decide?

Release on bail with personal bonds and two sureties of Rs. 20,000 each each, subject to conditions of appearance and non-tampering.

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

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:49437

¶2

Court No. - 12

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 5199 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Ayan Ansari Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy., Home Deptt., Lucknow And Others Counsel for Applicant :- S.K. Tripathi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Praveen Kumar Yadav,Saquib Zia Khan

¶5

Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J.

¶6

1 . Rejoinder afÏdavit filed today on behalf of the applicant is taken on record.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Saquib Zia Khan, learned counsel for the complainant as well as learned A.G.A. and perused the record.

¶8

3 . In terms of the FIR a missing person report was lodged alleging that the daughter of the informant was enticed away by the applicant, subsequently, in the statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C., the victim stated that on 03.01.2024 at about 7 PM, the applicant came in a Car and asked her to sit in the Car and believing him she sat in the Car and thereafter she was taken in a vehicle to a Jungle, where wrong was committed on her. It was also stated that both of them were roaming in the Car till 05.01.2024, when the police caught them. The medical of the victim was done, wherein she made a statement that under the threat, physical relations were formed. It was also admitted that they stayed together for one day and when she asked him to marry, he refused. In the statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C., she reiterated the said version and stated that both of them had stayed together allegedly under the threat for almost two days and when the victim got down for washing her face, the police caught them. The tentative

¶9

age of the victim is 16 years as per the statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C.

¶10

4. Learned A.G.A. as well as the counsel for the complainant opposed the bail prayer.

¶11

5. Considering the fact that the victim stayed with the applicant over a span of two days and the statement made by the victim before the Medical Authority coupled with the fact there is no specific document to conclusively form any opinion with regard to the age of the victim at this stage, the applicant who is in custody since 07.01.2024 having no criminal history is enlarged on bail. and there is nothing on record to demonstrate that the applicant if enlarged on bail. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed .

¶12

6. Let the applicant Ayan Ansari be released on bail in FIR/ Case Crime No. 02 of 2024, under Sections 363, 366, 376(2)(N), 323 IPC and Section 5L/6 POCSO Act, Police Station Malihabad, District Lucknow, 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:

¶13

(a) The applicant shall execute a bond to undertake to attend the hearings;

¶14

(b) The applicant shall not commit any offence similar to the offence of which he is accused or suspected of the commission; and

¶15

(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.

¶16

Order Date :- 22.7.2024 Arun

¶17

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

Ayan Ansari v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy., Home Deptt., Lucknow and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ayan Ansari v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy., Home Deptt., Lucknow and 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

Kallu Alias Javed Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko.

Arjun Chaurasiya Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko

Lateeq @ Laheek Vs State of U.P. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Shivam Pandey Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Lko. and 3 Others

Raju Vs State of U.P. Thru.Prin.Secy. Home and 3 Others

Rahul Gautam Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.