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

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

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Applicant Dhamendar to be released on bail in FIR/Case Crime No. 0152 of 2024, Police Station Khodare, District Gonda, on furnishing personal bond and two reliable sureties of Rs.20,000/- each, subject to conditions (attendance at hearings; no commission of similar offences; no inducement, threat or promise to dissuade disclosure of facts or tampering with evidence).

Issue for consideration

Whether applicant Dhamendar, in custody since 11.07.2024 in FIR/Case Crime No. 0152 of 2024 (Sections 137(2), 87, 65(2) Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita; Section 3/4(2) POCSO Act), Police Station Khodare, District Gonda, should be enlarged on bail.

Court's answer

The victim's statements under Sections 161 & 164 Cr.P.C. being at huge variance with the statements of the accomplices and that of the mother, and the tentative age of the victim being around 18-19 years as per the medical examination, a prima facie case for bail is made out.

Ratio / Principle

The applicant, in custody since 11.07.2024 and having no criminal history, is enlarged on bail and the bail application is allowed.

Key takeaways

Applicant Dhamendar is to be released on bail in FIR/Case Crime No. 0152 of 2024 on furnishing personal bonds and two reliable sureties of Rs.20,000/- each to the satisfaction of the court concerned, subject to conditions: (a) bond to attend hearings; (b) not to commit any similar offence; (c) not to directly or indirectly induce, threaten or promise any person acquainted with the facts so as to dissuade disclosure or tamper with the evidence.ratio¶¶11

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bail application allowed (High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench; Pankaj Bhatia, J.; order dated 10.9.2024). Applicant in custody since 11.07.2024 in FIR/Case Crime No. 0152 of 2024, Police Station Khodare, District Gonda, under Sections 137(2), 87, 65(2) Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita and Section 3/4(2) POCSO Act. FIR alleged that the informant's daughter, aged about 15 years, was called by the applicant on the false pretext of marriage and enticed, but the applicant was not named in the FIR; the victim's statements under Sections 161 & 164 Cr.P.C. did not name the applicant and were at huge variance with the statements of her friend Saroj and her mother, both of whom denied the version; the tentative age of the victim was around 18-19 years as per the medical examination; the applicant had no criminal history. Held: prima facie a case for bail is made out; applicant enlarged on bail on furnishing personal bonds and two reliable sureties of Rs.20,000/- each, with conditions to attend hearings, not commit similar offences, and not induce, threaten or tamper with evidence.

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:62414

Court No. - 12

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 9540 of 2024

Applicant :- Dhamendar Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Chandra Shekhar Shukla 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.

2 . In terms of the FIR, it was alleged that the daughter of the informant aged about 15 years, was called by the applicant on the false pretext of marriage and had enticed her. Subsequently, in the statements under Sections 161 & 164 Cr.P.C., the victim stated that she had gone along with her friend Saroj for relieving herself, when two persons came on a motor-cycle and took her and thereafter committed wrong on her, the applicant was not named in the FIR. A somewhat similar statement was given under Section 164 Cr.P.C., once again the name of the applicant was not taken. In the statement of her friend Saroj, she specifically denied having gone with the victim, even the mother of the victim had denied the said statement.

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

4. Considering the two statements being at huge variance with the statement of the accomplices and that of the mother, and the tentative age of the victim is around 18-19 years as per the medical examination, prima facie a case for bail is made out. The applicant who is in custody since 11.07.2024 having no criminal history is enlarged

on bail. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed .

6. Let the applicant Dhamendar be released on bail in FIR/ Case Crime No. 0152 of 2024, under Sections 137(2), 87, 65(2) Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita and Section 3/4(2) POCSO Act, Police Station Khodare, District Gonda, 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 :- 10.9.2024 Arun

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