Allowed

Sateesh v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Sectt. Lko and 3 Others

Allahabad HC11 Sept 2024/9694/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a bail application for an applicant accused of enticement and sexual offences. The court noted discrepancies in victim statements and refused medical examination, remanding the age determination under the Juvenile Justice Act to the trial court before granting bail.

What did the court decide?

The applicant is released on bail on personal bonds and two sureties of Rs.20,000/- each under respective sections of IPC and POCSO Act.

Sateesh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:62737

¶2

Court No. - 12

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 9694 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Sateesh Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Sectt. Lko And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Vishambhar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Shri Vivek Shukla, learned counsel for the respondent/ complainant as well as learned A.G.A. and perused the record.

¶7

Counter afÏdavit filed on behalf of the respondent no.2/complainant is taken on record.

¶8

In terms of the F.I.R., it was alleged that the daughter of the informant was enticed by the applicant. Subsequently, the victim did not support the prosecution story and she gave a statement that she had gone out of her own free will. The victim before the medical authorities, had disclosed her age as 18 years and refused to undergo medical examination.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that in the two statements of the victim recorded under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C., the victim did not support the prosecution story rather she gave a statement that she had gone out of her own free will. The victim before the medical authorities, had disclosed her age as 18 years and refused to undergo medical examination. There is no definite document to ascertain the correct age of the prosecutrix. The determination of the tentative 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 4.4.2024 having no criminal history, may be enlarged on bail.

¶10

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

¶11

Considering the two statements of the victim recorded under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. not corroborating the prosecution version and the fact that the victim has refused to undergo medical examination; 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 4.4.2024 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.

¶12

Accordingly, the application for grant of bail is allowed.

¶13

Let the applicant Sateesh be released on bail in FIR/ Case Crime No.44 of 2024, under Sections 363, 366, 376(3), 376(2) (N) I.P.C. and Section 5L/6 of the POCSO Act, Police Station Mall, District Lucknow 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 :-

¶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 ofÏcer or tamper with the evidence.

¶17

Order Date :- 11.9.2024/Shukla

¶18

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

Sateesh v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Sectt. Lko and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sateesh v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Sectt. 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

Aftab @ Hamza Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lucknow

Kundan Vishwakarma Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Secrett. U.P. Lko.

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

Sateesh vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Sectt. Lko and 3 Others

Asif vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Roshan Kumar vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt., Lko.