Allowed

Imamuddin @ Nanguttu v. State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko and 3 Others

Allahabad HC21 Aug 2024/8915/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 8915 of 2024, the Court enlarged the applicant, Imamuddin, on bail in an FIR involving kidnapping, abduction, and sexual offenses against a minor. The Court noted the victim's contradictory statements but prescribed conditions.

What did the court decide?

Released on personal bond with two sureties of Rs. 20,000/- each.

Imamuddin @ Nanguttu Vs State of U.P. Thru… — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:56791

¶2

Court No. - 12

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 8915 of 2024 Applicant :- Imamuddin @ Nanguttu Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Home Lko And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Mohammad Imaran Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J.

¶5

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

¶6

2. The applicant seeks enlargement on bail in FIR No.438 of 2023, under Section 363, 366, 376(3) IPC & Section 5/6 of POCSO Act, P.S. Maharajganj, District Rae Bareli.

¶7

3. In terms of the FIR lodged as a missing person report on 28.11.2023 it was alleged that on 26.11.2023 at about 2 at night, the daughter of the informant was missing and was allegedly enticed by the applicant. Subsequently, in the statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C., the victim disclosed her age as 17 years and stated that on 26.11.2023, the applicant had met her and she had gone alongwith him on a motorcycle to some different village where both of them stayed as husband and wife. In the statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C., the victim changed her version and disclosed her age as 15 years, however, she admitted that she had gone alongwith the applicant on bike against her consent. It was also stated that the applicant had taken her to his aunt's place and thereafter, physical relations were also formed. She also stated that she was kept in the said home for five days and after five days, brother of the applicant dropped her back.

¶8

4. Learned counsel for the applicant states that the applicant is ready and willing to marry the victim.

¶9

5. Learned AGA has opposed the bail application.

¶10

6. Considering the two statements wherein the victim has admitted to have gone on a motorcycle and stayed with the applicant for a span of almost five days, the applicant who is in custody since 08.12.2023 and has no criminal history, is entitled to be enlarged on bail. In view thereof, the application is allowed.

¶11

7. Let the applicant Imamuddin @ Nanguttu be released on bail in aforesaid FIR number on his furnishing a personal bond with two sureties of Rs.20,000/- each to the satisfaction of court concerned with the following conditions:

¶12

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

¶13

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

¶14

(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.

¶15

Order Date :- 21.8.2024

¶16

nishant

¶17

Digitally signed by :- NISHANT MOHAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Imamuddin @ Nanguttu v. State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Imamuddin @ Nanguttu v. State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home 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

Jai Ram Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home, Lucknow and 3 Others

Ashlendra Pratap Singh @ Dabbu Singh (in Fir Ashlendra @ Dabbu Singh) Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home

Amit Savita @ Anshu Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy., Home Deptt., Lucknow and Others

Santlal Nishad Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko.

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

Gulfam vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.