Allowed

Antim Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC24 Apr 2024BAIL/3687/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a bail application for Antim Singh arrested under POCSO and IPC sections for allegedly abducting and sexually assaulting a minor. The Court relied on discrepancies between FIR and investigation statements, lack of specific identification in medical reports, and the precedent in Monish regarding age determination.

What did the court decide?

The applicant Antim Singh is released on bail for Rs.20,000/- each of two sureties subject to personal bond conditions.

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

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:34884

¶2

Court No. - 12

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 3687 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Antim Singh Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And 3 Others

¶5

Counsel for Applicant :- Raja Babu Gupta

¶6

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Randheer Singh Malik

¶7

Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J.

¶8

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Shri Randheer Singh, learned counsel for the complainant as well as learned A.G.A. and perused the record.

¶9

In terms of the F.I.R., it was alleged that the daughter of the informant had gone out of home on 12.12.2023 when the applicant had enticed away the daughter and took her to a nearby tower and committed wrong on her. It was also stated that when the informant reached the said tower, he met the applicant and his daughter, however, the applicant managed to run away.

¶10

Learned counsel for the applicant has drawn my attention to the statements of the victim recorded under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. wherein the victim had stated that the victim was made to sit in the car against her wishes and thereafter she was taken inside the tower here a wrong was committed on her. She also stated that when some of the villagers came and saw both of them, the applicant ran away. Thereafter, the victim went home and had gone with her father for lodging the F.I.R. She also admitted that she knew the applicant and they used to talk on various occasions. A somewhat similar statement was given by the victim under Section 164 Cr.P.C. wherein she admitted that she used to talk with the applicant.

¶11

In the light of the said statement, learned

¶12

counsel for the applicant has drawn my attention to the statement of the victim given before the medical authorities wherein she did not name the applicant and stated that someone has done wrong to her and someone had sexually abused her. Learned counsel for the applicant has further drawn my attention to argue that the medical on record in respect of the internal examination, did not disclose any injury on the body of the victim. He further argued that on the analysis of the material collected during the medical examination, a definite view ` has come that no spermatozoa was found on any of the sample sent. He also states that one of the co accused namely Ankur Singh @ Manjit Singh has been enlarged on bail vide order date dated 29.3.2024 passed by this Court, although he does not claim parity with the said co accused. Hence, the applicant who is languishing in jail since 14.12.2023 having no criminal history, may be enlarged on bail.

¶13

Learned counsel for the informant as well as learned A.G.A. have strongly opposed the prayer for bail by arguing that the the statement of an independent witness is on record who had seen the applicant and the victim in a compromising position and on seeing the villagers, the applicant had ran away. It is further argued that the date of birth of the victim as per the High School certificate is 16.7.2008 which implies that the tentative age of the victim was around 15 years and four months at the time of the alleged incident. It is thus argued that the bail application of the applicant may be rejected.

¶14

Learned counsel for the applicant on the basis of averments made in the rejoinder affidavit argued that in the F.I.R. it was stated that the informant had caught the victim and the applicant whereas in the statement on record indicates that

¶15

the villagers had apprehended the applicant and the victim together in a compromising position which according to the applicant, is at huge variance. He also argued that in respect of the age, the victim herself disclosed her age as 16 years, which is at variance with the high school certificate.

¶16

As regards the age of the victim, learned counsel for the applicant states that for the age of the victim shall be determined at the time of the trial inview of the law laid down in the case of Monish Vs. State of U.P. passed by this Court in Crl. Misc. Bail Application No.55026 of 2021 decided on 9.2.2023. The applicant has no criminal history and is in jail since 14.12.2023, hence the applicant may be enlarged on bail.

¶17

What transpires from the record is that prima facie there is a difference of version in the F.I.R. and the statements under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. and also statement of the alleged independent witnesses, the F.S.L. report, prima facie do not corroborate the specific allegations of the commission under Section 376 I.P.C. The statement of the victim who admitted knowing the applicant since long not disclosing the name of the applicant during medical examination are the factors which are relevant.

¶18

Considering all these facts coupled with the fact that the applicant has no criminal antecedents and is in custody since 14.12.2023 and in view of the law laid down in the case of Monish Vs. State of U.P. (supra) decided on 9.2.2023. with regard to the determination of the age of the victim, and there is nothing on record to demonstrate that the applicant if enlarged on bail, would in any way adversely affect the trial and without expressing any opinion on merit, I am of the view that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail.

¶19

Accordingly, the bail application is allowed.

¶20

Let the applicant Antim Singh be released on bail in FIR/ Case Crime No.486 of 2023, under Sections 363, 376 D.A. I.P.C. and Section 5(G)/6 of the POCSO Act and added Section 366, 342 I.P.C., Police Station Paraspur, District Gonda on his furnishing personal bonds and two reliable sureties of Rs.20,000/- each to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions :-

¶21

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

¶22

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

¶23

(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.

¶24

Order Date :- 6.5.2024

¶25

Shukla

¶26

Digitally signed by :- ASHUTOSH KUMAR SHUKLA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Antim Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Antim Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Pyare Lal Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Sectt. Lko

Dinesh Kumar Gupta @ D.K. Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Suraj Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 3 Others

Anil Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 3 Others

Mohd. Ashraf Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 3 Others

Dheerendra Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lucknow and Others