Allowed

Arif v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC18 Jan 2024BAIL/396/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the bail application of an accused in a case involving allegations of rape and pooning a child under Section 376(3)/506 IPC and Sections 3/4 POCSO Act. The court noted a significant delay in FIR lodging, absence of conclusive proof of the victim's age, and medical evidence not corroborating the prosecution's version of force. Given these factors and the applicant's clean rec

What did the court decide?

Bail granted with conditions to execute personal bond with two sureties of Rs.25,000/- each.

Arif vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief… — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:5428

¶2

Court No. - 12

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 396 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Arif Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Manish Singh Chauhan Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J.

¶6

1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA and perused the record. None has appeared for respondent no.2 despite notice.

¶7

2. The applicant seeks enlargement on bail in FIR No.575 of 2023, under Section 376(3)/506 IPC & Section 3/4 POCSO Act, P.S. Thakurganj, District Lucknow.

¶8

3. In terms of the FIR it was alleged that the informant was staying in her house and was having five children; one of the daughters of the informant aged about 14 years was in her home when the applicant came to the home and closed the door from inside and committed rape on her. It was alleged that photo and video was also made. The statements under Section 161 and 164 Cr.P.C., were also recorded which are supporting the prosecution story.

¶9

4. In the light of the said, learned counsel for the applicant argues that the FIR in question was lodged after about 16 days of the alleged incident on 06.08.2023. He draws my attention to the medical on record, which was conducted on 22.08.2023, which does not suggest any use of force. As regards the age, there is no document except for Class - 3 certificate depicting the age of the victim as around 15 years.

¶10

5. Learned AGA has opposed the bail application.

¶11

6. Considering the huge delay in lodging the FIR, which is not explained, the fact that there is no document to finally determine the age of the victim at this stage coupled with the fact that the medical on record does not corroborate the versions, the applicant, who has no criminal history and is in custody since 25.08.2023, is entitled to be enlarged on bail. In view thereof, the application is allowed.

¶12

7. Let the applicant Arif be released on bail in aforesaid FIR number on his furnishing a personal bond with two sureties of Rs.25,000/- each to the satisfaction of court concerned with the following 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 :- 18.1.2024

¶17

nishant

¶18

Digitally signed by :- NISHANT MOHAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Arif v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Arif v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief 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

Dharmendra @ Sonu Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Pinki Verma Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Lko.

Chhotu Khan Vs the State of U.P. Thru. the Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home, Lko. and Others

Sarwan Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home and 3 Others

Smt. Teerath Rani Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko.

Arif Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko. and 3 Others