Partly allowed

X Minor of Case Crime No. 126/2024 v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko and 4 Others

Allahabad HC4 Sept 2024ABAIL/2023/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court granted interim anticipatory bail to a minor applicant accused of enticement under IPC and POCSO sections. Noting conflicting statements regarding the victim's age and medical evidence, the court relied on Mohammad Zaid to impose standard conditions without adjudicating merits.

What did the court decide?

Interim grant of anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. subject to conditions of personal bond, cooperation in investigation, regular reporting, and no travel without court permission.

X Minor of Case Crime No. 126/2024 vs State… — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Court No. - 14

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 2023 of 2024

¶3

Applicant :- X Minor Of Case Crime No. 126/2024 Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko And 4 Others

¶4

Counsel for Applicant :- Om Prakash Tiwari,Mohd. Nafeesh Quraishi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.

¶6

1. The present anticipatory bail application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. has been filed seeking anticipatory bail in case crime No.126 of 2024 under sections 363, 366, 376 I.P.C., 3/4 POCSO Act, P.S. Paraspur, district Gonda.

¶7

2. Heard learned counsel for the applicant who is permitted to delete the respondent No.2 from the array of parties, during course of day, and learned Additional Government Advocate for the State.

¶8

3. It is alleged in the prosecution case that daughter of the complainant aged about 18 years has been enticed away by the applicant on 29.3.2024 at about 6.00p.m. with an intent to marry. In this offence, the co-accused persons have assisted the applicant.

¶9

4.Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the victim was recovered on 2.4.2024. In her statement under section 161 CrPC, she has admitted that she was in relationship with the applicant for the period of three years. She has further stated that she on her own accord went away with the applicant without telling any one at home. However, while giving statement under section 164 CrPC, the victim has made improvement, however, she stated that she went away with the applicant and no physical relationship has been made between the duo. Radiological examination of the victim has not been

¶10

got conducted by the prosecution. In the medical, no corroborative evidence has been found.

¶11

5. Learned Addl. Government Advocate has opposed the prayer made by applicant's counsel. He submitted that the hymen of the victim was ruptured. He, on the basis of case diary, submits that the victim is minor being her date of birth as 8.6.2008.

¶12

6. A perusal of the record shows that the father who is the complainant himself has stated in the first information report that the victim is 18 years old. There can be no better evidence for determining the age of the victim.

¶13

7. Issue notice to respondent No.3.

¶14

8. List on 26.9.2024. Objections/counter affidavit be filed, in the meantime.

¶15

9. Considering the above aspects of the matter, perusal of the record, judgment in Mohammad Zaid versus State of U.P. and another Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail No.8361 of 2020 and other connected matters, paried statements of the victim under sections 161 and 164 CrPC, and without entering into the merit of the case, it would be appropriate to grant interim protection to the applicant under Section 438 Cr.P.C.

¶16

10. Till the next date of listing, it is provided that in the event of arrest, the applicant shall be released on anticipatory bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the arresting officer/I.O./S.H.O. concerned.

¶17

The applicant shall cooperate in the investigation and he will not influence the witnesses. The accused-applicant shall report to the concerned police station/investigating officer within twenty days from today and will remain present as and when the arresting officer /I.O./ S.H.O. concerned call (s) for investigation/interrogation. The applicant shall not leave India

¶18

without previous permission of the Court.

¶19

11. In case of default, it would be open for the investigating agency to move application for vacation of this interim protection.

¶20

Order Date :- 4.9.2024 kkb/

¶21

Digitally signed by :- KRISHNA KUMAR BARANWAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

X Minor of Case Crime No. 126/2024 v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

X Minor of Case Crime No. 126/2024 v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko and 4 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

Leelavati @ Meena Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home and Anotehr

Hari Om and Others Vs Ramji Rastogi and Others

Ram Gopal Nigam Vs Prescribed Authority/Civil Judge(Senior Division), Lucknow and Another

United India Insurance Company Ltd. Thru. Its Regional Manager vs Smt. Renu Rastogi and 2 Others

Dipak Kumar vs Sri Rajesh Kumar Prajapati Director, Ground Water Deptt. Lko.

Rahul @ Monu Tiwari vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko