Allowed

Ajeet Kumar Maurya @ Bajrangi v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC13 Aug 2024/6183/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bail application by an accused in a POCSO/rape case involving a pregnant minor victim who later bore a child. The court noted absence of definite age proof, the applicant's clean record, and his offer of Rs.5 lakh for the child's welfare, and allowed bail with conditions including a demand draft to the victim.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail on furnishing personal bond and two sureties of Rs.20,000 each, conditioned on paying Rs.5,00,000 demand draft to the victim before the trial court.

Ajeet Kumar Maurya @ Bajrangi Vs State of U.P. Thru… — Dowry and Cruelty | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:55951

¶2

Court No. - 12

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 6183 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Ajeet Kumar Maurya @ Bajrangi Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Vaibhav Srivastava,Abhinav Srivastava,Ajay Veer Singh,Kapil Misra,Sarvesh Upadhyay,Vishnu Pratap Singh

¶5

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Firoz Ahmad Khan

¶6

Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J.

¶7

Heard Shri Rahul Srivastava and Shri Ajay Verma, learned counsel for the applicants, Shri Firoz Ahmad Khan, learned counsel for the respondent no.2 as well as learned A.G.A. and perused the record.

¶8

In terms of the F.I.R., allegations were levelled that the daughter of the informant aged about 16 years was pregnant and was carryinga fetus of six months and subsequently, she informed that the applicant had committed the offence around six months. The F.I.R. was lodged on 1.3.2024. In the statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C., the victim stated that on two occasions on calling of the applicant, the victim has gone and thereafter he committed wrong on her.

¶9

In the light of the said allegation, learned counsel for the applicant argued that there is no definite document with regard to the age of the victim, thus the relationship in between the applicant and the victim was that of consent of the victim, as is evident from the statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C.

¶10

Learned counsel for the informant and the learned A.G.A. have opposed the prayer for bail by arguing that the a child has been born to the victim who is aged about one and half months. The F.S.L. report has also been filed which

¶11

corroborates that the applicant is natural father of the child.

¶12

Considering the said F.S.L. report, at this stage learned counsel for the applicant states that the applicant is ready and willing to discharge his obligation towards the child born out of his union with the victim, as per law. To establish the bonafides, learned counsel for the applicant states that the applicant is willing to give amount of Rs.5,00,000/- to the victim for the welfare of the child.

¶13

Considering these facts coupled with the fact that the age determination is to happen during trial as there is no definite document with regard to the age of the victim and the applicant has no criminal history and is languishing in jail 9.3.2024, this court deem fit to enlarge the applicant on bail.

¶14

Accordingly, the second bail application is allowed.

¶15

Let the applicant Ajeet Kumar Maurya @ Bajrangi be released on bail in FIR/ Case Crime No.0093 of 2024, under Sections 376(3), 504, 506 I.P.C. Section 5J(ii)/6 of POCSO Act, Police Station Kotwali Ayodhya, District Ayodhya on his furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties of Rs.20,000/- each to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions :-

¶16

(a). That the applicant shall give a demand draft of Rs.5,00,000/- in favour of the victim for taking financial care of the child and on paying the said amount of Rs.5,00,000/0 through a demand draft before the trial court, the applicant shall be released on bail.

¶17

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

¶18

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

¶19

(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

¶20

to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police ofÏcer or tamper with the evidence.

¶21

The victim would also b e at liberty to raise her claims for the child, in accordance with law.

¶22

Order Date :- 13.8.2024

¶23

Shukla

¶24

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

Ajeet Kumar Maurya @ Bajrangi 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?

Ajeet Kumar Maurya @ Bajrangi 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

Satya Prakash Maurya Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Anil Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Rohit Sharma Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. (Home), Lko.

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

Bambu @ Harish vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Kuldeep vs State of U.P., Thru. the Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home, Govt. Lko.