Allowed

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

Allahabad HC24 Apr 2024BAIL/4481/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a bail application under IPC sections 363, 366, 376(3) and POCSO section 4, the Allahabad High Court allowed bail after noting that medical records did not support allegations of physical assault, despite uncorroborated statements alleging the victim's age was under 18.

What did the court decide?

Released on bail with a bond and two sureties of Rs. 20,000 each, subject to conditions regarding attendance and non-interference.

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

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:31893

¶2

Court No. - 12

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 4481 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Dheerendra Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lucknow And Others Counsel for Applicant :- Bisunbablu Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Rahul Dwivedi, the counsel for the informant as well as learned AGA and perused the record.

¶7

The accused-applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No.469 of 2023 under sections 363, 366, 376(3) IPC and section 4 POCSO Act, P.S. Bhadokhar, District Rae Bareli.

¶8

In terms of the FIR, it was alleged that the daughter of the informant was enticed away by the applicant on 29.09.2023. It was also alleged that the other two accused named in the FIR were also helping the applicant. Subsequently, in the statement under section 161 Cr.P.C. the victim stated that on 29.09.2023, the applicant had called the victim and when the victim meet the applicant, he refused to take her along with him and left thereafter. It was further stated that the victim thereafter went to the home of her friend and stayed there for eight days when she came to know that the FIR has been lodged by her mother, he came back. However, in the statement under section 164 Cr.P.C., there were allegations of physical wrong being done by the applicant. The medical on record does not corroborate the allegations levelled under section 164 Cr.P.C. The tentative age of the victim was assessed as 17 to 18 years.

¶9

The counsel for the informant draws my attention to the statement of the one of independent witnesses who had deposed that she knew about the affair of the applicant with the victim. The statement of one another witness was also placed before me wherein it was stated that the applicant had promised to marry and were aware of the affair in between the applicant and the victim. My attention is also drawn to yet another statement which reveals that both of them were having an affair.

¶10

The counsel for the informant, based upon the oral instructions, argues that the age of the victim is less than eighteen years and thus consent has no meaning, as such, the bail application should be rejected particularly in view of the

¶11

specific assertions under sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C.

¶12

Considering the submissions made at the bar and recorded above, apart from the statement under section 164 Cr.P.C., which is not corroborated by the medical, there is no material to link the applicant with the offence in question particularly in view of the statement under section 161 Cr.P.C. and the statement of the independent witnesses, as such considering all these facts coupled with the fact that the applicant who is in custody since 02.11.2023 and has no criminal history is entitled for the bail. Thus the bail application is allowed.

¶13

Let the applicant Dheerendra 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:

¶14

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

¶15

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

¶16

(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.

¶17

Order Date :- 24.4.2024 VNP/-

¶18

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

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

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

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