Allowed

Arun v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC23 Nov 2024ABAIL/11061/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an anticipatory bail application, the Court found no substantive evidence against the applicant and granted bail conditional on his availability for interrogation and non-interference, directing the investigation to conclude within three months.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted till submission of police report on furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 with two sureties each, subject to conditions.

Arun vs State of U.P. and 3 Others — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:183441

¶2

Court No. - 69

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 11061 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Arun Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Shubham Tripathi,Vinit Kumar Sharma Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Ashutosh Srivastava,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State- opposite party, and perused the material placed on record.

¶7

This application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. has been filed seeking anticipatory bail in Case Crime No. 0028 of 2024, under Sections 363, 120-B, 376 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of POCSO Act, Police Station-Sureri, District-Jaunpur.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the instant case. On 05.04.2024 a missing report was given by the informant to the Station House Officer, Police Station-Sureri, District-Jaunpur. On the said missing report the Police has registered a First Information Report being F.I.R. No. 0028 of 2024 under Section 363 and 102 B I.P.C against one Gudia Gautam and one unknown person with the allegation that the daughter of the informant namely Jyoti Gautam, aged about 17 years, under the influence of Gudia Gautam has eloped with unknown person. Later on during the course of investigation the name of the applicant has been added by the police. Later on the girl was recovered and in her statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. she has deposed that she is 18 years old and she herself eloped with the applicant on her sweet will and solemnized marriage and thereafter they lived together as husband and wife. She herself has refused for her medical examination. Later on, in the statement of the victim under Section 164 Cr.P.C. she has deposed that the applicant Arun has solemnized Court marriage with her at Jaunpur and raped her but she did not make

¶9

any hue and cry. On the basis of the statement of the victim under Section 164 Cr.P.C., Section 376 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of POCSO Act has been added by the Investigating Officer. There are contradiction in the statement of the victim recorded under Sections 161 as well as 164 Cr.P.C. In both the statements she has said about the marriage with the applicant. The applicant has no criminal antecedents. It is next submitted that the investigation is going on and the applicant has apprehension of his arrest in the above mentioned case.

¶10

Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail but could not satisfactorily dispute the aforesaid submissions from the record.

¶11

Counsel for the applicant further submits that the application for grant of anticipatory bail be confined only till the submission of police report.

¶12

Having regard to the submissions made by learned counsel for the applicant, considering the nature of accusations, antecedents of the applicant at this stage, there is no substantive evidence against the applicant, without commenting on merits of the case, I am of the opinion that the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on anticipatory bail till the submission of police report.

¶13

In the event of arrest, the applicant- Arun be released on anticipatory bail in the aforesaid case crime till the submission of police report, if any, under Section 173 (2) Cr.P.C., on furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Station House Officer of the police station concerned with the following conditions:-

¶14

(i) The applicant shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required;

¶15

(ii) 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 from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer.

¶16

In default of any of the conditions, the Investigating Officer is at liberty to file appropriate application for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to the applicant.

¶17

The Investigating Officer is directed to conclude the investigation of the present case in accordance with law expeditiously preferably within a period of three months from the date of production of a copy of this order independently without being prejudiced by any observation made by this Court while considering and deciding the present anticipatory bail application of the applicant.

¶18

The applicant is directed to produce a copy of this order before the S.S.P./S.P. concerned within ten days from today, who shall ensure the compliance of present order.

¶19

The application stands disposed of .

¶20

Order Date :- 23.11.2024 Deepak/

¶21

Digitally signed by :- DEEPAK KUMAR KUSHWAHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Arun v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Arun v. State of U.P. 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

Similar cases

Abhishek Agarwal vs State of U.P.

Dr Nawab Ahmad vs Smt Kamrunisha and 6 Others

Narendra @ Vishnu vs State of U.P.

Tej Kumar vs State of U.P.

Najim vs State of Up and Another

Shriniwas vs State of U.P. through Principal secratary Home government of U.P. at Lucknow