Dismissed

Rajan Singh @ Raunak Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lucknow and Others

Allahabad HC23 Aug 2024ABAIL/1913/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court dismissed the anticipatory bail application for accused in a POCSO and abduction case, rejecting it as not pressed, while granting liberty to file a regular bail application within ten days based on the Satender Kumar Antil precedent.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail application dismissed as not pressed; liberty to file regular bail application within ten days.

Rajan Singh @ Raunak Singh vs State of U.P… — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:57789

¶2

Court No. - 14

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 1913 of 2024 Applicant :- Rajan Singh @ Raunak Singh Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lucknow And Others Counsel for Applicant :- Kaushal Tiwari Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.

¶5

The present application for anticipatory bail has been filed for protection in regard to F.I.R. No. 199/2024, under sections 363/366 I.P.C. and Section 16/17 of POCSO Act, P.S. Millarea, district Raibareli.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for applicant as well as learned Additional Government Advocate for State.

¶7

It has been informed that notices to the complainant have been served, even though, none has appeared on behalf of the complainant.

¶8

It is alleged in the prosecution case that minor daughter of the informant has been enticed away by the named accused persons along with two other unknown persons.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the victim in her statement under Section 161 has not made any allegation against the present applicant. In that statement, she has further stated that she went away with co-accused Saurav to Lucknow, from Lucknow to Delhi and from Delhi to Panipat where she stayed in a rented room and after they were left with no money, they returned. The prosecutrix in her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. has alleged the complicity of the present applicant.

¶10

Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that the applicant is innocent and he has been falsely implicated. The

¶11

statements of the prosecutrix recorded under Section 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. are contradictory and improvement has been made by her while giving statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. There is no other corroborative material in order to show the complicity of the applicant in this case.

¶12

Learned AGA has opposed the bail application submitting that the victim is a minor girl. The applicant is absconding. After NBW, proclamation under section 82 Cr.P.C. has been issued against the applicant on 14.08.2024.

¶13

On due consideration to the statement of the victim recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. as well as statement of the learned AGA that the proceedings under Section 82 Cr.P.C. have been drawn against the applicant, I am not inclined to entertain the anticipatory bail application of the applicant.

¶14

At this stage, applicant's counsel submits that the present application for anticipatory bail may be dismissed as not pressed with liberty to file a regular bail application which may be decided in view of law laid by Supreme Court passed in Special Leave to Appeal (Cri) No.5191 of 2021 "Satender Kumar Antil versus Central Bureau of Investigation and another".

¶15

In view of the above, present anticipatory bail application is dismissed as not pressed. It is provided that in case a regular bail application is filed within ten days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order, the same be decided in view of the law laid by by Supreme Court vide order dated 7.10.2021 passed in the case of Satender Kumar Antil (supra).

¶16

Order Date :- 23.8.2024

¶17

R.C.

¶18

Digitally signed by :- RAM CHANDER YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Rajan Singh @ Raunak Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lucknow and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajan Singh @ Raunak Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lucknow and 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

Manoj Kumar Verma Vs State of U.P.Thru.Prin.Secy.Home Lko.

Rajesh Mishra @ Rajesh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Gurjant Singh Dhillon Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko.

Sushil Kumar Srivastava Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Secy. Lko.

Avnish Singh @ Avinash vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko

Irshad Ahmad and Another vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another