Allowed

Surendra Maurya v. State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Deptt. of Home U.P. Lko. and Others

Allahabad HC5 Feb 2024BAIL/1245/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court granted bail to the applicant in a case involving kidnapping and sexual offences against a minor. The decision relied on the victim's statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. not supporting the prosecution and her refusal for medical examination, alongside the applicant's lack of criminal antecedents.

What did the court decide?

Bail granted on furnishing personal bond and two sureties with conditions not to tamper with evidence or intimidate witnesses.

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

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:12960

¶2

Court No. - 14

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 1245 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Surendra Maurya Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Deptt. Of Home U.P. Lko. And Others Counsel for Applicant :- Suyesh Pradhan Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA for the State and perused the record.

¶7

Learned AGA on the basis of instructions has informed that notices to the complainant are served. None appears on behalf of the complainant.

¶8

It is alleged in the FIR that for the last one year, love relationship of minor daughter of the informant was going on with one Surendara (application). Upon coming to know, the informant sent the prosecutrix to his in-laws at Maholi. On 10.07.2023, while the applicant was trying to entice away the victim, the informant with the help of his wife caught both of them and took them to the police station.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the victim in her statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. has not supported the prosecution case. She has stated that she made a phone call and asked Surendra to come at her place where from both of them were going to marry each other. While giving statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C., she has completely changed the prosecution story and has stated that no wrong has been committed by Surendra with her. She has further stated that while they were talking, her maternal uncle saw them and made a call to her father. It has been further stated by her that she was not enticed away by Surendra to anywhere. She has denied to undergo for the medical examination. In the radiological examination, age of the victim has been found to be 15 years.

¶10

It is further submitted that the applicant is languishing in jail since 11.07.2023 without having any criminal antecedent. There is no possibility of the applicant of fleeing away after being released from jail or tampering with the witnesses. In case the applicant is enlarged on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶11

Learned AGA has opposed the bail application submitting that the victim is minor and the urine sample of the victim has been found positive for pregnancy. Learned AGA could not deny the fact that the victim in her statement under Section 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. has not supported the prosecution case and also the fact that she has denied to undergo for the medical examination.

¶12

On due consideration to the fact that the victim has denied to undergo for the medical examination and has not supported the prosecution case in her statement under Section 161 and 164 Cr.P.C., coupled with the fact that the applicant is languishing in jail since 11.07.2023 without having any criminal antecedent and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I find it to be a fit case for enlarging the applicant on bail.

¶13

Accordingly, the bail application is allowed.

¶14

Let the applicant, Surendra Maurya, involved in Case Crime/FIR No. 421/2023, under Sections 363/366/376(3) IPC, Section 5(J)(ii) of POCSO Act and Section 3(2)(5) of S.C./S.T. Act, Police Station - Maholi, District - Sitapur, be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions which are being imposed in the interest of justice:-

¶15

(i) The applicant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.

¶16

(ii) The applicant will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness.

¶17

(iii) 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.

¶18

(iv) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law.

¶19

(v) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶20

(vi) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued and the applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶21

Order Date :- 12.2.2024 R.C.

¶22

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

Surendra Maurya v. State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Deptt. of Home U.P. Lko. and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Surendra Maurya v. State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Deptt. of Home U.P. Lko. and 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

Mo. Firoz Khan @ Firoz Khan vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko and Another

Gobind Chandra Patra (as in the Fir ) (Gobind Chandra Patra as in the Adhar ) vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Neeraj Yadav vs the State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home, Lko. and Others

Kishori Lal Yadav Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Civil Secrett. Lko.

Ankul Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Salman Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.