Allowed

Gautam v. State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Secrt. Lko. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC25 Jan 2024/890/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench allowed a bail application filed by the accused in a sexual offence case involving a minor under IPC and POCSO. The court noted a ten-month delay in filing the FIR and lack of age documentation for the victim as key factors.

What did the court decide?

The applicant released on bail with conditions of executing a bond and providing two sureties of Rs.25,000 each.

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

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:7556

¶2

Court No. - 12

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 890 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Gautam Opposite Party :- State Of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Secrt. Lko. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Nisha Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA and perused the record.

¶7

The accused-applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No.0337 of 2023 under sections 376(3), 504, 506 IPC and section 5/6 POCSO Act, P.S. Gosainganj, District Lucknow.

¶8

In terms of the FIR, it was alleged that the daughter of the informant was staying with her parents and around ten months ago, the applicant used to come home and finding her to be alone, formed physical relations with her and while going, he was given Rs.100/- and now it was revealed that she was pregnant and was carrying a fetus of six months.

¶9

In the light of the said allegations, the FIR was lodged. In the statement under section 161 Cr.P.C., the victim stated that the applicant used to come to home and after alluring her, formed physical relations with her and now she was carrying a fetus of seven months. In the statement under section 164 Cr.P.C., she stated that she was pregnant and does not want to keep the baby and would get the baby to the applicant and instead thereof, the applicant get Rs.10.00 lacs and a house.

¶10

In the light of the said averments, the contention of the counsel for the applicant is that admittedly the relationship continued over a span of more than six to seven months without there being any reason for not disclosing the said fact and after the pregnancy was discovered, the FIR was lodged. As regards the age, there is no definite document which can conclusively determined the age of the victim in terms of the documents prescribed under the Juvenile Justice Act and the Rules framed thereunder, the medical also does not support or point out any force being used.

¶11

Considering overall facts and the fact that the FIR itself was lodged after ten months of the alleged incident, a case for bail is made out particularly when the applicant has no criminal

¶12

history and there is nothing on record to demonstrate that the applicant if enlarged on bail can adversely affect the trial, the applicant is entitled for the bail. Thus the bail application is allowed.

¶13

Let the applicant Gautam be released on bail in aforesaid first information report number subject to his furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties of Rs.25000/- (Twenty Five Thousand) each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:

¶14

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

¶15

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

¶16

(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.

¶17

Order Date :- 25.1.2024 VNP/-

¶18

Digitally signed by :- VISHVANATH PRASAD SHUKLA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Gautam v. State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Secrt. Lko. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gautam v. State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Secrt. 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

Santosh @ Sandeep Vs State of U.P.

Vinod Kashyap Vs State of U.P. Thru.Its Prin. Secy. H. and 3 Ors.

Shiv Nandan Shukla Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt., Civil Secrt. Lko.

Kuldeep @ Babu Vs State of U.P Thru. Prin. Addil. Chief Secy. Deptt. Home Lko.

Ashish Gupta @ Anshu Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

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