Allowed

Rahul v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC13 May 2024/945/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This single-paragraph order allowed an anticipatory bail application filed by Rahul challenging prosecution under Section 363, 366A IPC and POCSO Act. The Single Judge noted a conflicting victim statement averting marriage versus the missing person report, concluding a clear case for bail was made out and ordered bail with bond.

What did the court decide?

The applicant allowed to be released on anticipatory bail in FIR No.140 of 2024 by executing a personal bond with two sureties of Rs.20,000/- each.

Rahul Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 3… — Narcotics (NDPS) | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:36528

¶2

Court No. - 12

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 945 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Rahul Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Manoj Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Ankit Mishra,Swati Mishra

¶5

Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J.

¶6

1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant; Shri Shikhar Srivastava, learned AGA for the State; Shri Ankit Mishra, learned counsel for the informant and perused the record.

¶7

2. The applicant seeks enlargement on anticipatory bail in FIR No.140 of 2024, under Section 363, 366A, 376 IPC & Section 3/4 of POCSO Act, P.S. Khairighat, District Bahraich.

¶8

3. In terms of the FIR, a missing person report was lodged alleging that the daughter of the informant was enticed away by the applicant. Subsequently, in the statements under Section 161 & 164 Cr.P.C., the victim stated that she had gone out of her own freewill and had also married the applicant. The tentative medical age of the victim has been ascertained as 18 years.

¶9

4. Learned AGA has opposed the bail application.

¶10

5. Considering the two statements and the medical report on record, a clear case for grant of anticipatory bail is made out. In view thereof, the present application for anticipatory bail is allowed.

¶11

6. In the event of arrest, let the applicant Rahul be released on anticipatory bail in aforesaid FIR number on his furnishing a personal bond with two sureties of Rs.20,000/- each to the satisfaction of Station House Officer concerned with the following conditions:

¶12

(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

¶13

(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.

¶14

Order Date :- 13.5.2024 nishant

¶15

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

Rahul v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rahul v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. 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

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

Tasouver Ali Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Mainuddin @ Salman Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko.

Smt. Basanti Tiwari Vs State Thru. C.B.I. New Delhi

Rajesh Kumar Vs State of U.P.Thru. Secy. Home Lko.and Others

Latif Ansari vs State of Up Thru. Prin. Secy. Home