Allowed

Mohd. Akeel v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 4OTHERS

Allahabad HC9 Jan 2024/71/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a bail application regarding allegations of kidnapping and sexual offenses under IPC and POCSO, the court observed discrepancies in victim statements and noted a lack of corroborating material linking the applicant to the crime. The court granted bail, citing no criminal history and no indication that release would adversely affect the trial.

What did the court decide?

The applicant was released on bail under Sections 363, 366A, 376-D IPC and Sections 5G/6 POCSO Act by furnishing two personal bonds and two sureties of Rs. 25,000/- each.

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

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:2439

¶2

Court No. - 12

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 71 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Mohd. Akeel Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And 4others

¶5

Counsel for Applicant :- Ranjit Singh, Mahendra Pratap Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶6

Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Lalji Yadav, learned counsel for the complainant/informant as well as learned A.G.A. and perused the record.

¶8

2 . In terms of the F.I.R., it was alleged that the daughter of the informant had enticed away by one Dablu Sahu and a call has also been made from a particular number by the said person demanding Rs.10,000/-. Subsequently, however, in the statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. the victim stated that she was aged about 16 years and she had gone to her maternal uncle's home at Pratapgarh, where one Golu and applicant had taken her by use of force to Prayagraj and thereafter wrong was done to her. In the statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C., she stated that she had gone to see a fair when on the way back one Devendra and the applicant took her by use of force to Allahabad in a Car and committed wrong on her. It was also stated that both of them took her to Rajasthan thereafter and sold her to a man. It was also stated that at Allahabad they have misbehaved with her. It was also stated that there was a dispute going on in between Imam, the applicant and Devendra and there were enmity between the two families. She also stated that video was also made. In the light of the said, the

¶9

submission of the counsel for the applicant is that in the recovery memo, the police had recovered the girl from Pratapgarh Bus Stand, thus the entire story looses the credibility. My attention is also drawn to the statement of the informant, wherein he has stated that there was a dispute with regard to elections to the post of Pradhan with Imamuddin and the applicant and Devendra used to help him. In short, apart from the statement under Sections 161 & 164 Cr.P.C., prima facie, no material exists to corroborate or link the applicant with the offence in question. The statement under Section 164 Cr.P..C, looses credibility in view of the recovery memo.

¶10

3. Learned A.G.A. opposed the bail prayer.

¶11

4. Considering the said statements coupled with the fact that the applicant has no criminal history and is in jail since 16.08.2023 and there is nothing on record to demonstrate that the applicant if enlarged on bail, would in any way adversely affect the trial and without expressing any opinion on merit, I am of the view that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed .

¶12

5. Let the applicant Mohd. Akeel be released on bail in FIR/ Case Crime No. 217 of 2023, under Sections 363, 366A, 376-D IPC and Section 5G/6 POCSO Act, police station Jethwara, District Pratapgarh on his furnishing personal bonds and two reliable sureties of Rs.25,000/- 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 :- 9.1.2024 Arun

¶17

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

Mohd. Akeel v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 4OTHERS

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohd. Akeel v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 4OTHERS

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

Irshad Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. U.P. Lucknow and 4 Others

Dheeraj Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 3 Others

Rohit Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko.

Chhotu Alias Umesh Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, U.P. Lucknow

Shishupal Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. the Prin. Secy. Home, Lko. and Others

Santosh Rawat Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Sectt. Lko