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

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

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Applicant Rajneesh to be released on bail in FIR/Case Crime No. 35 of 2024, under Sections 363, 366, 376 I.P.C. and Section 5j(2)/6 of the POCSO Act, Police Station Asoha, District Unnao, on furnishing personal bond and two reliable sureties of Rs.20,000/- each, subject to conditions (attendance at hearings; no similar offences; no inducement, threat or promise or tampering with evidence); liberty to the victim to seek cancellation of bail if the applicant resiles from the factum of marriage.

Issue for consideration

Whether the applicant Rajneesh, accused in FIR/Case Crime No. 35 of 2024 under Sections 363, 366, 376 I.P.C. and Section 5j(2)/6 of the POCSO Act, P.S. Asoha, District Unnao, is entitled to be released on bail. +1 more

Court's answer

Considering that the victim's two statements under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. do not corroborate the prosecution version, that the victim is found pregnant, and that the applicant has been in jail since 23.5.2024 with no criminal history, and without expressing any opinion on merits, the applicant is entitled to be released on bail.

Ratio / Principle

Bail is granted subject to conditions; in case the applicant resiles from the factum of marriage, the victim would be at liberty to file a bail cancellation application.

Key takeaways

The determination of the tentative age of the victim is left to the trial court, to be decided at the time of trial as per the mandate of Section 94 of the Juvenile Justice Act.obiter¶11

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bail granted — Sections 363, 366, 376 I.P.C. and Section 5j(2)/6 of the POCSO Act (FIR/Case Crime No. 35 of 2024, P.S. Asoha, District Unnao). FIR was lodged as a missing-person report alleging the informant's daughter was enticed away by the applicant; in her two statements under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. the victim did not support the prosecution story and stated that the parties had married out of their own free will; the victim is stated to be pregnant; there is no definite document to ascertain the prosecutrix's age and its tentative determination was left to the trial court at trial under Section 94 of the Juvenile Justice Act; applicant in custody since 23.5.2024 with no criminal history. Without expressing any opinion on merits, the Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench (Pankaj Bhatia, J.; Neutral Citation 2024:AHC-LKO:62688, order dated 11.9.2024) allowed the bail application on personal bond and two reliable sureties of Rs.20,000/- each, with usual conditions, and provided that if the applicant resiles from the factum of marriage the victim may seek cancellation of bail.

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:62688

Court No. - 12

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 9677 of 2024

Applicant :- Rajneesh Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Smriti 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.

No one appears on behalf of the respondent no.2 despite notice.

The F.I.R. in question was lodged as a missing person report alleging therein that the daughter of the informant was enticed away by the applicant. Subsequently, in the two statements recorded under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C., the victim did not support the prosecution story rather stated that both of them had married out of their own free will.

Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that both the victim and the applicant had married at a temple. The victim is pregnant. There is no definite document to ascertain the correct age of the prosecutrix. The determination of the age of the victim shall be made by the trial court at the time of trial as per the mandate of Section 94 of the Juvenile Justice Act. Hence, the applicant who is languishing in jail since 23.5.2024 having no criminal history, may be enlarged on bail.

Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail.

Considering the two statements of the victim recorded under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. not corroborating the prosecution version and the victim is found pregnant; the determination of the tentative age of the victim shall be decided by the trial court at the time of trial as per the mandate of Section 94 of the Juvenile Justice Act and the fact that the applicant is languishing in jail since 23.5.2024 having no criminal history and without

expressing any opinion on merit, I am of the view that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail.

Accordingly, the application for grant of bail is allowed.

Let the applicant Rajneesh be released on bail in FIR/ Case Crime No.35 of 2024, under Sections 363, 366, 376 I.P.C. and Section 5j(2)/6 of the POCSO Act, Police Station Asoha, District Unnao 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.

It is further provided that in case the applicant resiles from the factum of marriage, the victim would be at liberty to file a bail cancellation application.

Order Date :- 11.9.2024/Shukla

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