Allowed

Lekhraj v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home, Civil Secrt. Lko. and Others

Allahabad HC13 Aug 2024BAIL/2977/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed two bail applications filed by Lekhraj and Mitru @ Mukesh in a criminal case involving offences under IPC and POCSO. Noting the victim's traumatic false statement during trial and the applicants' clean record, the court ordered their release. Bail is granted subject to furnishing bonds and sureties along with specific conditions.

What did the court decide?

Bail granted to the applicants subject to furnishing personal bonds and two sureties of Rs.20,000/- each, and undertaking to attend hearings, not commit similar offences, and not tamper with evidence.

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

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:55840

¶2

Court No. - 12

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 2977 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Lekhraj Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home, Civil Secrt. Lko. And Others Counsel for Applicant :- Fakhruddin Ali Ahmad Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

AND

¶6

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 7621 of 2024

¶7

Applicant :- Mitru @ Mukesh Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Lko. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Dr. Pooja Singh,Achleshwar Raj Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶8

Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J.

¶9

1. Supplementary affidavit filed today in Court in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.2977 of 2024 is taken on record.

¶10

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

¶11

3 . The present application has been filed by the applicants seeking enlargement on bail in FIR No.481 of 2023, under Sections 376DA, 506 IPC and Section 5g/6 of POCSO Act, Police Station Rudauli, District Ayodhya.

¶12

4 . The FIR in question was lodged alleging the offence of Section 376 of IPC. Subsequently, the statement of the victim was recorded during trial, wherein, she specifically stated that nothing wrong was done against them and the FIR was lodged by her father on account of not coming to the house of the victim.

¶13

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

¶14

6. Considering the statement of the prosecutrix not supporing the prosecution during trial and the fact that the applicant have

¶15

no criminal antecedents and are languishing in jail since 23.09.2023, I am of the view that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail. Accordingly, the bail applications are allowed .

¶16

7. Let the applicants Lekhraj and Mitru @ Mukesh be released on bail in the aforesaid first information report on their furnishing personal bonds and two reliable sureties of Rs.20,000/- each to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:

¶17

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

¶18

(b) The applicants shall not commit any offence similar to the offence of which they are accused or suspected of the commission; and

¶19

(c) The applicants 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.

¶20

Order Date :- 13.8.2024 akverma

¶21

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

Lekhraj v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home, Civil Secrt. Lko. and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Lekhraj v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home, Civil Secrt. 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

Satya Prakash Maurya Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

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

Rohit Sharma Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. (Home), Lko.

Mohan Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Bambu @ Harish vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Kuldeep vs State of U.P., Thru. the Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home, Govt. Lko.