Allowed

Ashok Rajbhar v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lucknow and Others

Allahabad HC5 Mar 2024BAIL/2532/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bail application in a case involving alleged enticement of a minor girl and sexual relations. Court considered the victim's Section 164 statement that she loved the applicant since childhood, delayed medical examination, applicant's clean antecedents and time in jail, and allowed bail with standard conditions.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail on personal bonds and two sureties of Rs.20,000 each with conditions.

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

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:32470

¶2

Court No. - 12

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 2532 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Ashok Rajbhar Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lucknow And Others Counsel for Applicant :- Mahendra Pratap Verma Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J.

¶6

1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned A.G.A. and perused the record. Despite service of notice, no one appeared on behalf of the complainant.

¶7

2 . The applicant seeks enlargement on bail in FIR No.218 of 2023, under Sections 363, 366, 376(2)(n), 323 of IPC and Section 5/6 of POCSO Act, Police Station Bhiti, District Ambedkar Nagar.

¶8

3 . In terms of the FIR, a missing person report was lodged alleging that the daughter of the informant was enticed away by the applicant. Subsequently, in the statement under Section 164 of Cr.P.C., the victim stated that she was in love with the applicant since childhood and subsequently both the them had gone together, the applicant was already married. The allegation of forceful sexual relation was levelled. The medical on record was conducted after substantial delay, which naturally does not corroborate any of the allegation of Section 376 of IPC. The tentative age of the victim is around 17-18 years.

¶9

4. Learned A.G.A. vehemently opposed the bail prayer.

¶10

5. Considering the statement under Section 164 of Cr.P.C.; both the victim had knew each other since the childhood; the victim was in love with the applicant coupled with the fact that the applicant has no criminal antecedents and is languishing in jail since 01.10.2023, I am of the view that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed .

¶11

6. Let the applicant Ashok Rajbhar be released on bail in the aforesaid first information report on his furnishing personal bonds and two reliable sureties of Rs.20,000/- each to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following

¶12

conditions:

¶13

(a) The applicant shall execute a bond to undertake to attend the hearings;

¶14

(b) The applicant shall not commit any offence similar to the offence of which he is accused or suspected of the commission; and

¶15

(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.

¶16

Order Date :- 25.4.2024 akverma

¶17

Digitally signed by :- ASHOK KUMAR VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Ashok Rajbhar v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lucknow and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ashok Rajbhar v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lucknow 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

Karan Pasi vs State of U.P. through Secretary Home Department Civil Secretariat, Lucknow

Dipu vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko.

Mohd. Arshad vs State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Secrt. Lko. and 3 Others

Kanhaiya Lal vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy., Revenue Deptt., Lucknow and Others

Bheem Sen vs Bano and 2 Others

Sanjay Dwivedi vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt., Civil Secrt. Lko. and Others