Allowed

Avanish @ Chhotu v. State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Allahabad HC24 Jan 2024/861/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a bail application under sections 363 and 366 IPC, this single judge allowed the application for the accused, highlighting discrepancies in the prosecutrix's age and her own statement denying allegations against the applicant, noting a case for bail exists due to sufficient detention period and lack of antecedents.

What did the court decide?

Release of the applicant on bail upon furnishing a personal bond with two sureties subject to specific conditions.

Avanish @ Chhotu Vs State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home… — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:7114

¶2

Court No. - 15

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 861 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Avanish @ Chhotu Opposite Party :- State Of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Santosh Kumar Kanaujia Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Mohd. Faiz Alam Khan,J.

¶6

Learned AGA informs that he has procured complete instructions in the matter including upto date case diary and charge sheet in this case has already been submitted.

¶7

Heard Shri Santosh Kumar Kanaujia, learned counsel for the accused/applicant as well as learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶8

This bail application has been moved by the accused/applicant- Avanish @ Chhotu for grant of bail, in Case Crime No. 407/2023, under Sections 363, 366 IPC, Police Station Neemgavon, District Lakhimpur Kheri, during trial.

¶9

Learned counsel for the accused-applicant while pressing the bail application submits that it is a case of false implication. The FIR of this case has been lodged by the father of the prosecutrix on 26.11.2023 alleging that applicant along with the help of other co-accused persons has enticed away his daughter aged about 14 years on 26.11.2023, however, the victim is shown to have been recovered on 2.12.2023 and her statement under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. was recorded wherein she did not allege any allegation against the applicant and stated to have accompanied him with her free wish, will and consent.

¶10

It is also submitted that during the course of medical examination also she informed the doctor that she had accompanied the applicant on her own with her free wish, will and consent and had solemnized marriage with the applicant.

¶11

It is also submitted that in her statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. she has stated her age to be of 18 years, while in the FIR her age has been shown as 14 years and as per her educational credentials her age is coming as 14 years, 4 months, 14 days on the date and time of the incident. Thus,

¶12

there is discrepancy in the age of the prosecutrix and as no source has been disclosed on the basis of which the date of birth of the prosecutrix has been recorded in the School Record and the age of the prosecutrix recorded in the School may not been deemed as conclusive and the same is still to be adjudicated /assessed by the trial court and since she has not alleged any imputation against the applicant, no offence has been committed by the applicant. He is in jail in this case since 6.12.2023 and charge sheet in this case has already been filed. There is no apprehension that the accused-applicant after release on bail, may flee from the process of law or may otherwise misuse the liberty. Charge sheet in this case has already been submitted.

¶13

Learned A.G.A. on the other hand submits that the applicant is accused of committing an heinous offence, therefore, he is not entitled to be released on bail.

¶14

Considering the fact that there is discrepancy in the age of prosecutrix as stated in the FIR and in her statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. vis-a-vis her date of birth shown in the school record and also that she had not imputed any allegation against the applicant and considering detention period of the applicant, a case of bail is made out against the applicant, more so when he is not having any criminal antecedent. Charge sheet in this case has already been submitted. His presence may be secured before the trial court by placing adequate conditions.

¶15

Keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, severity of punishment, submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and without expressing any opinion on the merits and demerits of the case, I am of the considered view that applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed.

¶16

Let the applicant- Avanish @ Chhotu involved in the aforesaid case be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions:-

¶17

(i) The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence by intimidating/pressurizing the witnesses, during the investigation or trial.

¶18

(ii) The applicant shall cooperate in the trial sincerely without seeking any adjournment.

¶19

(iii) The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal activity or

¶20

commission of any crime after being released on bail.

¶21

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.

¶22

Identity, status and residence proof of the applicant and sureties be verified by the court concerned before the bonds are accepted.

¶23

Observations made herein-above are only for the purpose of disposal of bail application and the same shall not have any bearing on the trial of the case.

¶24

Order Date :- 24.1.2024 Muk

¶25

Digitally signed by :- MOHD UMAR KHAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Avanish @ Chhotu v. State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Avanish @ Chhotu v. State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

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

Dr. Vijay Kumar Sharma Vs Ashish Rawat Asst. Director (Pmla) Directorate of Enforcement Lko.

Aman Rajput Vs the State of U.P. Thru. Prin.Secy. Home Deptt.

Ravi Shankar Tiwari Vs State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Govt. Civil Secrt. Lko.

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

Jitendra Kumar Pandey Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin.Secy. Home

Rauwab Ali @ Daddan Vs State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Civil Secrt. Lko.