Allowed

Mayank Bhanu Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home, Civil Secrt. Lko.

Allahabad HC17 Jan 2024BAIL/553/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a bail application under sections 328 and 376 IPC involving alleged sexual offence, the High Court considered the victim's inconsistent statements under sections 161 and 164 CrPC, absence of injuries, and lack of TIDP. The Court granted bail as a fit case without adjudicating merits.

What did the court decide?

Relief on bail granted with personal bond and two sureties, subject to conditions against tampering, intimidation, and misconduct.

Mayank Bhanu Singh vs State of U.P. Thru… — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:11966

¶2

Court No. - 14

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 553 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Mayank Bhanu Singh Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home, Civil Secrt. Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Shailendra Singh Rajawat,Saurabh Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Vijay Kumar Mishra

¶5

Hon'ble Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.

¶6

1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned counsel for the complainant, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State and perused the record.

¶7

2. It is alleged in the prosecution case that the victim came to Lucknow from Kaushambi in relation to one case on 2.10.2023 and on 5.10.2023, she met with a boy near Darulshafa who asked her to fix a meeting with all and get the work done. On this pretext, she was taken to a hotel where she was given some medicine, consequently, she became unconscious and on regaining consciousness, she found that were no clothes on her body. On being asked as to why he did wrong with her, he asked her not to tell anyone and he will arrange her meeting with everyone. Thereafter, he left her to Darulsafa.

¶8

3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the victim is a married lady and mother of two children. She is the informant of the first information report, however, while giving statement under section 161 CrPC, story of the prosecution has been changed where she has stated that she went to a hotel along with a boy on her own free will.

¶9

While giving statement under section 164 CrPC, altogether a different story has been narrated and name of the one Pankaj has been disclosed. The applicant's name has not been disclosed either in the first information report, the statement under section 161 or in the statement under section 164 CrPC given by the victim. The complainant victim was medically examined and no injury either on external or internal part of the body was found. No test identification parade was conducted. Even in the CCTV footage, the applicant has not been identified. It is a case of false implication. The applicant has no previous criminal

¶10

history. The applicant is in jail since 9.10.2023.

¶11

It is further submitted that there is no possibility of the applicant of fleeing away after being released on bail or tampering with the witnesses. In case the applicant is enlarged on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶12

4. Learned A.G.A. and learned counsel for the complainant opposed the prayer for bail, however, they could reply as to why different story has been narrated by the victim in her statement under section 164 CrPC.

¶13

5. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the fact that the applicant has no criminal history, statements of the prosecutrix under sections 161 and 164 CrPC, medical examination report of the victim, arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties, the period for which the applicant is in jail and without expressing any opinion on the merit of the case, I find it to be a fit case for enlarging the applicant on bail.

¶14

6. Let the applicant Mayank Bhanu Singh, involved in Case Crime No.295 of 2023 under sections 328, 376 I.P.C., P.S. Hazratganj, district Lucknow, be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions which are being imposed in the interest of justice:-

¶15

(i) The applicant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.

¶16

(ii) The applicant will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness.

¶17

(iii) 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

(iv) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as

¶19

abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law. (v) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶20

(vi) In case the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued and the applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶21

7. The application is allowed accordingly.

¶22

Order Date :- 9.2.2024 kkb/

¶23

Digitally signed by :- KRISHNA KUMAR BARANWAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Mayank Bhanu Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home, Civil Secrt. Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mayank Bhanu Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home, Civil Secrt. Lko.

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

Shaukin Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin.Secy. Home

Chandra Shekhar Rawat @ Goley Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Abhishek Pratap Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home U.P. Lko.

Maniram Gupta Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Civil Sectt. U.P. Lko.

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

Satyam Bajpei Vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Home, Lko.