Allowed

Shubham Patel v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC11 Jan 2024BAIL/377/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This bail application was allowed. The High Court granted relief considering the victim's statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. which contradicted the prosecution story, the pending age determination under the Juvenile Justice Act, and the applicant's lack of prior criminal record.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail by furnishing personal bonds and two sureties of Rs.20,000/- each.

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

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:27745

¶2

Court No. - 12

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 377 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Shubham Patel Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Jaikaran

¶5

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶6

Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned A.G.A. and perused the record.

¶8

Counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent State is taken on record.

¶9

In terms of the F.I.R. registered as a missing person report, it was alleged that the daughter of the informant was enticed away by the applicant four to five months ago and physical relations were formed against her consent.

¶10

Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that in the statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C., the victim did not support the prosecution story and stated that physical relations were formed with her consent. Learned counsel for the applicant argued that the determination of the tentative age of the victim as per the mandate of Section 94 of the Juvenile Justice Act has not done and the same would be done at the time of trial. The applicant is in custody since 5.8.2023 having no criminal history, hence he may be enlarged on bail.

¶11

Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail.

¶12

Considering the statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. coupled with the fact that the determination of the age of the victim has not been done as per the mandate of Section 94 of the Juvenile Justice Act and the same would be decided at the time of

¶13

trial and the applicant is languishing in jail since 5.8.2023 having no criminal history 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.

¶14

Accordingly, the application for grant of bail is allowed.

¶15

Let the applicant Shubham Patel be released on bail in FIR/ Case Crime No.197 of 2023, under Sections 363, 366, 376(3) I.P.C. and Section 5/6 of the POCSO Act, Police Station Jagatpur, District Raebareli 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 :-

¶16

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

¶17

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

¶18

(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.

¶19

Order Date :- 4.4.2024/Shukla

¶20

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

Shubham Patel v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shubham Patel 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Harshendra Singh @ Raja Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Lko.

Shyam Bihari @ Shyam Kishor Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko.

Brijesh Kumar Prajapati Vs the State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Deptt. Govt. Lko.

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

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

Rajendra Gupta Third Bail Vs State of U.P.