Allowed

Radheshyam @ Kariya v. State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Civil Secrt. Lko. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC13 May 2024BAIL/4287/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In criminal miscellaneous bail application, court released applicant on bail despite pending trial for child sexual offence allegations, noting victim's conflicting statements and applicant's lack of prior criminal history.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail under personal bonds and two sureties of Rs.20,000/- each subject to conditions of attending hearings and not tampering with evidence.

Radheshyam @ Kariya vs State of U.P Thru… — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:44982

¶2

Court No. - 12

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 4287 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Radheshyam @ Kariya Opposite Party :- State Of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Civil Secrt. Lko. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Mahesh Kumar

¶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

No one appears on behalf of the respondent no.2 despite service of notice.

¶9

In terms of the F.I.R. , initially a missing person report was lodged alleging therein that the daughter of the informant was enticed away by the applicant. Subsequently, in the statements under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C., the victim did not support the prosecution story rather she stated that as she was abused by her sister, she ran alongwith the applicant and thereafter they went to Delhi.

¶10

Learned counsel for the applicant argued that there is no definite document with regard to the age of the victim which can be ascertained at the time of trial under the Juvenile Justice Act readwith the rules framed thereunder. The applicant has no criminal history and is in jail since 25.1.2024, hence the applicant may be enlarged on bail.

¶11

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

¶12

Considering the fact that the tentative age of the victim is around 17 years and the two statements of the victim recorded under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. which do not corroborate the prosecution story coupled with the fact that the

¶13

applicant has no criminal history and is languishing in jail since 25.1.2024; 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 bail application is allowed.

¶15

Let the applicant Radheshyam @ Kariya be released on bail in FIR/ Case Crime No.06 of 2024, under Sections 363, 366, 376 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of the POCSO Act, Police Station Malhipur, District Shravasti 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 :- 2.7.2024/Shukla

¶20

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

Radheshyam @ Kariya v. State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Civil Secrt. Lko. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Radheshyam @ Kariya v. State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Civil Secrt. 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

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

Tasouver Ali Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Mainuddin @ Salman Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko.

Smt. Basanti Tiwari Vs State Thru. C.B.I. New Delhi

Rajesh Kumar Vs State of U.P.Thru. Secy. Home Lko.and Others

Latif Ansari vs State of Up Thru. Prin. Secy. Home