Allowed

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

Allahabad HC25 Apr 2024BAIL/3756/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court allowed bail to the applicant in a rape and kidnapping case involving a minor victim. The judgment held that allegations appeared improbable due to lack of medical corroboration and non-recovery of the alleged vehicle, despite specific assertions against the applicant in recorded statements.

What did the court decide?

Released on bail through a personal bond and two reliable sureties of Rs. 20,000 each, subject to conditions of attending hearings, not committing similar offences, and not tampering with evidence.

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

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:32246

¶2

Court No. - 12

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 3756 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Neeraj Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Civil Sectt. Lko. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Desh Mitra Anand,Utkarsh Anand Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J.

¶6

Supplementary Affidavit filed today in court is taken on record.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA and perused the record. No one appears for the informant despite notice.

¶8

The accused-applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No.0162 of 2023 under sections 363, 376-D IPC and section 5/6 POCSO Act, P.S. Auraas, District Unnao.

¶9

In terms of the FIR registered against unknown person, it was alleged that since around 02:00 am, the daughter of the informant aged about 17 years was enticed away by two unknown persons. Subsequently, the victim was recovered and got her statement recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C. wherein she stated that the applicant had enticed her and had left her with one Surendra and thereafter both of them had taken to a particular place and both of them had committed rape on her. The counsel for the applicant thereafter draws my attention to the statement of the victim recorded under section 164 Cr.P.C., wherein the victim stated that she knew the co-accused since July 2023 and used to talk to him and on 01.08.2023, he had called her and when she reached that place, the said co-accused Surendra was not present present and the applicant and the other co-accused were present there and both of them took her in a Bolero car and took her to the co-accused Surendra and thereafter allegation of wrong was alleged against all the three co-accused.

¶10

In the light of the said statements, the submission of the counsel for the applicant is that the medical report on record does not corroborate or show any use of sign of force, as alleged in the statement under sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. He further argues that the tentative age of the victim is around seventeen years. It is further argued that admittedly the victim was recovered through her aunt who was called and was even

¶11

standing alone. He further argues that there is no recovery of the vehicle Bolero as alleged in the statement nor is the applicant owner of any such vehicle. It is further argued that the applicant has no criminal history and is in custody since 12.08.2023.

¶12

Learned AGA opposes the bail application by arguing that in the statement under section 161 and 164 Cr.P.C., specific assertions were taken against the applicant and considering the said two statements, no case for bail is made out and the bail application may be rejected.

¶13

Considering the submissions made at the bar, prima-facie apart from the statement under section 161 and 164 Cr.P.C., there is no corroboration of same in the medical on record, there is no recovery of the vehicle allegedly used for taking the victim and is not even a part of case diary, thus, considering all these facts, the allegations levelled against the applicant appear to be improbable, as such, the applicant who has no criminal history and is in custody since 12.08.2023 is entitled for the bail. Thus the bail application is allowed.

¶14

Let the applicant Neeraj be released on bail in aforesaid first information report 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:

¶15

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

¶16

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

¶17

(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.

¶18

Order Date :- 25.4.2024 VNP/-

¶19

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

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Neeraj v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. 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

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

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

Mathura Prasad Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Neeraj Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Civil Sectt. Lko. and 3 Others