Allowed

Saroj Kumar Verma @ Chhotu v. State of U.P. Thru. the Prin. Secy. Home Lko and Ors.

Allahabad HC31 Jul 2024/7011/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single-judge criminal bail application allowed. Applicant entrenched in FIR regarding enticement of a minor. Victim's second statement contradicted prosecution case. Bail granted on personal bond and two sureties.

What did the court decide?

Released on bail on personal bond and two reliable sureties of Rs.20,000/- each subject to conditions of attendance and non-interference.

Saroj Kumar Verma @ Chhotu Vs State of U.P… — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:52194

¶2

Court No. - 12

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 7011 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Saroj Kumar Verma @ Chhotu Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. The Prin. Secy. Home Lko And Ors.

¶5

Counsel for Applicant :- Shiv Ram Tewari,Mukesh Kumar Tiwari

¶6

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶7

Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J.

¶8

1. Counter affidavit filed by the State is taken on record.

¶9

2 . It is informed by the learned A.G.A. that notice of the bail has been served on the informant. Despite the service of notice, no one present on behalf of the informant.

¶10

3 . Heard learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned A.G.A. and perused the record. Despite service of notice, no one appeared on behalf of the complainant.

¶11

4 . The applicant seeks enlargement on bail in FIR No.49 of 2024, under Sections 363, 376 IPC and Section 3/4 of POCSO Act, Police Station Sirsiya, District Shravasti.

¶12

5 . In terms of the FIR, a missing person report was lodged alleging that the daughter of the informant aged about 15 years was enticed by the applicant. Subsequently, in the statement under Sections 161 and 164 of Cr.P.C., the victim did not support the prosecution story and stated that she was in love with the applicant. The tentative age of the victim is determined as 18 years.

¶13

6. Learned A.G.A. vehemently opposed the bail prayer.

¶14

7. Considering the two statements under Sections 161 and 164 of Cr.P.C. not supporting the prosecution story and the fact that the applicant is in custody since 07.03.2024, I am of the view that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed .

¶15

8. Let the applicant Saroj Kumar Verma @ Chhotu be released on bail in the aforesaid first information report on his furnishing

¶16

personal bonds and two reliable sureties of Rs.20,000/- each to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:

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

¶20

Order Date :- 31.7.2024 akverma

¶21

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

Saroj Kumar Verma @ Chhotu v. State of U.P. Thru. the Prin. Secy. Home Lko and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Saroj Kumar Verma @ Chhotu v. State of U.P. Thru. the Prin. Secy. Home Lko and Ors.

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

Chandrabhan Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Deptt. of Home U.P. Lko. and Another

Rekha Devi Pandey Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Civil Sectt. Lko.

Kamlesh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko

Ram Prakash Pathak Alias Lal Maharaj Tantrik Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home, U.P. Lko.

Monu @ Mukaddar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lucknow and 3 Others

Rajendra Mangta Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko and 3 Others