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

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

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Applicant Pramod Dixit to be released on bail in FIR/Case Crime No. 350 of 2023 under Sections 376(2)(n), 376(3), 506 IPC and Section 5(1)/6 POCSO Act, Police Station Fakharpur, District Bahraich, on furnishing personal bonds and two reliable sureties of Rs.20,000/- each, subject to conditions (a)-(c): bond to attend hearings; no commission of similar offence; no inducement, threat or promise to dissuade disclosure of facts or tampering with evidence.

Issue for consideration

Whether the applicant Pramod Dixit is entitled to be released on bail in FIR/Case Crime No. 350 of 2023 under Sections 376(2)(n), 376(3), 506 IPC and Section 5(1)/6 POCSO Act, Police Station Fakharpur, District Bahraich.

Court's answer

Bail was considered in light of the inordinate delay in lodging the FIR, the applicant having no criminal history, his custody since 12.08.2023, and nothing on record to demonstrate that his enlargement on bail would adversely affect the trial.

Ratio / Principle

Without expressing any opinion on merit, the Court held the applicant entitled to be released on bail and allowed the bail application.

Key takeaways

Release directed on furnishing personal bonds and two reliable sureties of Rs.20,000/- each, subject to conditions: (a) bond to undertake to attend hearings; (b) not to commit any similar offence; (c) not to directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts so as to dissuade disclosure or tamper with evidence.ratio¶12

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bail — Sections 376(2)(n), 376(3), 506 IPC and Section 5(1)/6 POCSO Act — FIR/Case Crime No. 350 of 2023, P.S. Fakharpur, District Bahraich — allegation that the applicant, a relative of the informant, had physical relations with the informant's niece aged about 14 years over 5-6 months, leading to pregnancy — FIR lodged after 5-6 months' delay without explanation; defence challenged the educational-qualification document as age-proof under the Juvenile Justice Act — applicant in custody since 12.08.2023, no criminal history, and nothing on record to show release would adversely affect the trial — bail allowed without expressing any opinion on merit, on personal bonds and two reliable sureties of Rs.20,000/- each, subject to conditions (attendance at hearings; no similar offence; no inducement, threat or promise to dissuade disclosure or tamper with evidence).

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:29422

Court No. - 12

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 791 of 2024

Applicant :- Pramod Dixit Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Dinesh Chandra Tewari Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J.

Heard learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned A.G.A. and perused the record. None turned up on behalf of the complainant despite service of notice.

2 . In terms of the FIR, it was alleged that the applicant, who was the relative of the informant used to come in the house of the informant and formed physical relations with the niece of the informant aged about 14 years, over a span of 5-6 months and on account of which, she became pregnant.

3 . The counsel for the applicant argues that the FIR in question was lodged after a delay of 5-6 months without there being any explanation. He further argues that there is no document on record to form any view with regard to the age of the victim, the document of educational qualification as relied upon by the learned AGA can not be a valid document as prescribed under the Juvenile Justice Act.

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

5. Considering the fact that there is an inordinate delay in lodging the FIR coupled with the fact that the applicant has no criminal history and is in custody since 12.08.2023 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 .

6. Let the applicant Pramod Dixit be released on bail in FIR/ Case Crime No. 350 of 2023, under Sections 376(2)(n), 376(3), 506 IPC and Section 5(1)/6 POCSO Act, Police Station Fakharpur, District Bahraich, 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:

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

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

(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.

Order Date :- 10.4.2024 Arun

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