Allowed

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

Allahabad HC24 Jul 2024ABAIL/7150/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court granted anticipatory bail to the applicant in a case involving allegations under Sections 363, 366, 376 IPC and POCSO Act. The grant was based on the ossification report showing the victim was 18 years old and her statement that she married the applicant after majority, leading to a conclusion of no rape assault.

What did the court decide?

Accused released on personal bond of Rs. 50,000 with two sureties of like amount, subject to conditions of appearing in court, not tampering with witnesses, and not leaving India.

Pankaj vs State of U.P. and 3 Others — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:128310

¶2

Court No. - 72

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 7150 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Pankaj Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Prabhat Kumar Tiwari Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Vivek Varma,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Rupak Chaubey, learned AGA for the State- opposite party no. 1, and Sri Uma Dutt Shukla, learned counsel for the informant- opposite party no. 2, and perused the material available on record.

¶7

This application under section 438 Cr.P.C. has been filed seeking anticipatory bail in Case Crime No. 30 of 2023, under Sections 363, 366, 376 I.P.C. and 5/6 Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, Police Station Hathras Gate, District Hathras.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the instant case. Initially the first information report was lodged under Section 363 I.P.C. As per the allegations in the first information report, the age of the victim was shown as 17 years and 6 months. Pursuant to the order dated 12.05.2023 passed by this Court in Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 6461 of 2023, Smt. Radha and another v. State of U.P. and others, the ossification test of the victim was conducted by a panel of three doctors. As per the report of the panel, age of the victim was found to be 18 years. Further, the victim in her statements under Sections 161 Cr.P.C. and 164 Cr.P.C. had stated that she after attaining the age of majority had married the applicant. There is no allegation of rape or sexual assault against the applicant. The applicant has no criminal antecedents. Charge-sheet has been submitted. No custodial interrogation is required. The applicant has been summoned by the trial Court. The applicant has apprehension of his arrest in the above mentioned case.

¶9

Learned A.G.A. and learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail but could not satisfactorily dispute the aforesaid submissions from the record.

¶10

Having regard to the submissions made by learned counsel for the applicant, considering the nature of accusations and antecedents of the applicant and in particular the facts that as per the ossification test report, age of the victim was found to be 18 years, the victim in her statements under Sections 161 Cr.P.C. and 164 Cr.P.C. had stated that she after attaining the age of majority had married the applicant, and there is no allegation of rape or sexual assault 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.

¶11

In the event of arrest, the applicant- Pankaj, involved in the aforesaid case crime, be released on anticipatory bail during pendency of trial, on furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:-

¶12

(i) The applicant shall make himself available on each and every date fixed in the matter by the court concerned;

¶13

(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;

¶14

(iii) The applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court and if he has passport, the same shall be deposited by him before the concerned court.

¶15

In case, the applicant does not co-operate in the proceedings of the trial, this order shall stand automatically recalled/vacated and the applicant shall be taken into custody, forthwith.

¶16

Further, in default of any of the conditions, the court concerned is at liberty to pass appropriate orders for enforcing and compelling the same.

¶17

The application stands disposed of.

¶18

Order Date :- 8.8.2024 SKT/-

¶19

Digitally signed by :- SHIVA KANT TIWARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pankaj 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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Ramesh Yadav and 3 Others vs State of Up and Another

Smt Maya Devi vs State of Up and Another

Avdhesh and Another vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Ravindra vs State of U.P. and Another

Noushad vs State of U.P.

Avid vs State of U.P.