Allowed

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

Allahabad HC31 Jul 2024ABAIL/1707/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Judicature at Allahabad allowed an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. The applicant faces charges under Section 376 IPC and POCSO regarding the enticement of a minor. The court noted the victim's contradictory statements and lack of corroboration as factors favoring the grant of bail.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted subject to furnishing a personal bond and two sureties, along with standard conditions regarding tampering with evidence, leaving the country, and appearing in court.

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

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:65421

¶2

Court No. - 14

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 1707 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Neeraj Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Dheerendra Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Mohammad Imran

¶5

Hon'ble Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.

¶6

The present bail application has been filed by the applicantNeeraj under Section 438 Cr.P.C. apprehending his arrest in F.I.R./Case Crime No.0007 of 2022 under Section 376 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 POCSO Act, Police Station- Ganga Ghat, District- Unnao.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State. None appears on behalf of the complainant.

¶8

In the prosecution case, it is alleged that the minor daughter of the informant aged about 16 years has been enticed away by the applicant with the assistance of the co-accused persons.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that initially FIR was registered under Sections 363, 366 and 504 IPC, in which the applicant has been granted bail. During the trial, charges have been altered under Section 216 Cr.P.C. On the statement made by the victim before the court, Section 376 IPC and 3/4 POCSO Act have been added.

¶10

Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that the victim in her statement under Section 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. has not supported the prosecution case while giving her statement before the court first time totally new story has been narrated by her, contrary to the pleadings and the statement made on her behalf in the joint petition filed by the victim and the applicant before the Division Bench of this Court, i.e., Criminal Writ Petition No.729 of 2022 that both of them are major and are living together. He also submits that there is no corroborative evidence in support of the allegation made by the victim before the court. The victim is major as per the statement given before the Division Bench of this Court in the aforesaid petition.

¶11

Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the bail application.

¶12

On due consideration to the submissions advanced, perusal of the record so also the fact that the improvement made by the

¶13

victim before the Special Court, so also the order passed in Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No.729 of 2022, fact that the applicant has no criminal history and he shall cooperate in the trial, it would be expedient in the interest of justice that the liberty of the applicant may be protected in view of dictum of Apex Court in re: Sushila Aggarwal Vs. State (NCT of Delhi)2020 SCC online SC 98 .

¶14

In view of the above, if the applicant is summoned to face trial for offence in question, he shall be released on bail by the trial court on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court concerned with the following conditions:-

¶15

(i) 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 tamper with the evidence;

¶16

(ii) The applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the court;

¶17

(iii)The applicant shall not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness;

¶18

(iv)The applicant shall appear before the trial court on each date fixed unless personal presence is exempted;

¶19

(v) In case of breach of any of the above conditions the court below shall have the liberty to cancel the bail;

¶20

Any other reasonable restrictions/conditions which the trial court may deem fit and proper can be imposed.

¶21

It is made clear that the observations made in granting bail to the applicant shall not in any way affect the trial Judge in forming his independent opinion based on the testimony of the witnesses.

¶22

In view of the aforesaid, the application is allowed .

¶23

Order Date :- 20.9.2024 Ashutosh

¶24

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

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Neeraj 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Ranjeet Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Anil Kumar Vs State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Civil Secrt. Lko. and Another

Ranjeet Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Shailendra Pratap Singh @ Rajjan Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Antima Sharma vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Sectt. Lko and Another

Udai Pratap Singh @ Udai Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.