Allowed

Arjun v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home Civil Sectt. Lko and 3 Others

Allahabad HC25 Sept 2024BAIL/10245/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this criminal bail application, the Allahabad High Court allowed the applicant's petition for bail in a case involving IPC and POCSO charges. The court highlighted the victim's inconsistent statements and lack of conclusive medical age report. The applicant was granted bail on personal and surety bonds with standard conditions.

What did the court decide?

The applicant was released on bail upon furnishing a personal bond and two sureties of Rs. 20,000 each, subject to attending hearings and not tampering with evidence.

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

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:66565

¶2

Court No. - 12

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 10245 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Arjun

¶5

Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home Civil Sectt. Lko And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Chandra Bhanu Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶6

Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA and perused the record. No one appears for the opposite party no.2 despite notice.

¶8

The accused-applicant seeks bail in FIR/Case Crime No.227 of 2024 under sections 363, 366, 376(3) IPC and Section 5/6 POCSO Act, P.S. Kheeron, District Rae Bareli.

¶9

The FIR in question was lodged as a missing person report alleging that the daughter of the informant aged about 14 years was enticed by the applicant. Subsequently, in the two statements under section 161 and 164 Cr.P.C., the victim did not support the prosecution story and stated that she had gone out of her free will and physical relations were also formed with her consent. There is no definite document to conclusively form an opinion with regard to the age of the victim as the medical age is yet to happen.

¶10

Considering the two statements, the applicant who is in custody since 08.05.2024 and has no criminal history is entitled for the bail. Thus the bail application is allowed.

¶11

Let the applicant Arjun be released on bail in aforesaid FIR/Case Crime Number subject to his furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties of Rs.20,000/- (Twenty Thousand) each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:

¶12

(a) The applicant shall execute a bond to undertake to attend the hearings; (b) The applicant shall not commit any offence similar to the offence of which he is accused or suspected of the commission; and

¶13

(c) 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 to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶14

Order Date :- 25.9.2024

¶15

VNP/-

¶16

Digitally signed by :- VISHVANATH PRASAD SHUKLA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Arjun v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home Civil Sectt. Lko and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Arjun v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home Civil Sectt. 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Sanjeev Kumar @ Gulab Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home Lko. and 3 Others

Ram Samujh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Deptt. U.P. Govt. Lko.

Mohd. Karib Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko

Sundarpata vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko

Atul Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. (Home) Govt. of U.P. Lko.

Kaushlendra @ Ramu vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko and 3 Others