Allowed

Rahmat Sheikh v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Lko. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC10 May 2024BAIL/4984/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The applicant, charged under IPC sections and POCSO Act for kidnapping and sex with a minor, was granted bail. The court noted the victim's statement supported marriage, age was uncertain without proof, and the applicant had no criminal history.

What did the court decide?

Bail allowed on personal bonds and two reliable sureties of Rs.20,000/each with standard conditions.

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

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:45941

¶2

Court No. - 12

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 4984 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Rahmat Sheikh Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Lko. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Raghunath Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J.

¶6

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

¶7

None appears on behalf of the respondent no.2 despite service of notice.

¶8

In terms of the F.I.R., it was alleged that the daughter of the informant was missing and was enticed away by the applicant. Subsequently, in the statements under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C., the victim stated that she had married with the applicant and physical relations were also formed.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicant argued that as per the statement under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C., the tentative age of the victim is around 16 years. The victim has not supported the prosecution story in her statements recorded under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. The applicant states that the marriage was solemnised in between the applicant and the victim. There is no definite document to conclusively determine the age of the victim at this stage in terms of the mandate prescribed under Section 94 of the Juvenile Justice Act. Hence, the applicant having no criminal antecedents is languishing in custody since 12.1.2024, may be enlarged on bail.

¶10

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

¶11

Considering the statements of the victim recorded under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. and

¶12

the admitted fact that the applicant has married with the victim coupled with the fact that the applicant has no criminal history is languishing in jail since 12.1.2024, without expressing any opinion on merit, I am of the view that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail.

¶13

Accordingly, the bail application is allowed.

¶14

Let the applicant Rahmat Sheikh be released on bail in FIR/ Case Crime No.572 of 2023, under Sections 363, 366, 344, 376 I.P.C. and Section 5/6 of the POCSO Act, Police Station Shushant Golf City, District Lucknow 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 :-

¶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 :- 5.7.2024/Shukla

¶19

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

Rahmat Sheikh v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Lko. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rahmat Sheikh v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. 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

Anurag Pal Vs state of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home

Rekha Devi Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. U.P.

Mithlesh Singh @ Ratnesh Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home Lko

Awdhesh Kumar vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 2 Others

Sunny @ Suryoday vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Rekha Yadav vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another