Allowed

Harinam v. State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Civil Sectt. Lko and 3 Others

Allahabad HC12 Jun 2024BAIL/6243/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This bench allowed a bail application for Harinam charged under IPC and POCSO acts. Granting relief based on unexplained FIR delay, major contradictions between statements recorded under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C., prior bail of co-accused, and applicant's clean record.

What did the court decide?

Applicant Harinam released on bail by furnishing a personal bond and two sureties subject to specified conditions of behavior and court attendance.

Harinam vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home… — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:47962

¶2

Court No. - 17

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 6243 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Harinam Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Civil Sectt. Lko And 3 Others

¶5

Counsel for Applicant :- Hari Pal Singh,Sushil Kumar Gupta Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Shailendra Kr Singh Yadav

¶6

Hon'ble Rajeev Singh,J.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and learned counsel for the informant/ complainant.

¶8

As per the learned counsel for the applicant, the present applicant is in jail since 15.04.2024 in FIR/Case Crime No.73 of 2024, under Sections 363, 366, 376D and 506 IPC and Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012, Police Station- Shahabad, District- Hardoi.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the present applicant has been falsely implicated in the case as he has not committed any offence as alleged. Attention has been drawn towards the impugned FIR, which shows that for the alleged incident dated 26.02.2024, the FIR has been lodged on 28.02.2024 and the aforesaid inordinate delay has not been explained in the FIR. Learned counsel for the applicant has further submitted that the applicant is a friend of Rahul, victim and Rahul were in love and the victim left her house on her own will and went with Rahul as she was willing to marry with Rahul and thereafter, on the basis of incorrect fact, FIR of case in question was lodged and victim was recovered on 05.03.2024 and in her statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C was recorded in which she categorically stated that on 26.02.2024 at 7:00 P.M. she went with Rahul on her own will because she was willing to enter into marriage with him because the family members are not giving their consent. At the same time, this fact came into their notice that the FIR was lodged by her father then she came to the police station but in the way, police personnel met her and her statement was recorded thereafter, she was handed over to her parent/ informant and after about 23 days from the alleged recovery, her statement under Section 164 was recorded in which she stated that on 28.02.2024, at about 4:30 A.M. she went for defecation in the grounds and when she was coming

¶10

back then all three accused persons, including the present applicant, caught her and dragged her into the vehicle and her mouth was also closed by them, thereafter they brought her to Ambala by vehicle and they committed rape but the vehicle in question was not recovered by the Investigating Officer.

¶11

Learned counsel for the applicant has also submitted that here is a major contradiction in the prosecution story in relation to the date of incident. The co-accused persons, namely, Rahul and Veeresh have already granted bail by this Court vide order dated 21.06.2024 and 20.06.2024 in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.6820 of 2024 and Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.6750 of 2024 respectively. Charge-sheet has already been filed. There is no possibility of tampering of any evidence. The present applicant is having no prior criminal history of any kind whatsoever. Learned counsel has stated that the applicant undertakes that if he is released on bail, he shall abide by all terms and conditions of the bail order and shall not misuse the liberty of bail and shall participate in the trial proceedings.

¶12

Learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for the informant has, however, vehemently opposed the prayer for bail but they could not dispute the aforesaid submissions of learned counsel for the applicant.

¶13

Without entering into the merits of the case; considering the arguments of learned counsel for the parties; contents and allegations of F.I.R.; the fact that there is about two days' delay in lodging the FIR and such delay has not been explained; there is a major contradiction in the statements recorded under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. and the report of the victim; coaccused persons, namely, Rahul and Veeresh have already granted bail by this Court; the present applicant has no prior criminal history of any kind whatsoever and undertaking of the applicant that he shall abide by all conditions of the bail order and cooperate in the trial court proceedings, I find it appropriate to release the present applicant on bail.

¶14

Accordingly, the bail application is allowed .

¶15

Let applicant- Harinam be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number 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:-

¶16

(i) 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

¶17

this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law.

¶18

(ii) 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.

¶19

(iii) 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.

¶20

(iv) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. If in the opinion of the trial court absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law.

¶21

(v) The applicant shall not leave India without previous permission of the court.

¶22

Order Date :- 15.7.2024 Mohd. Sharif

¶23

Digitally signed by :- MOHAMMAD SHARIF High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Harinam v. State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Civil Sectt. Lko and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Harinam v. State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Civil Sectt. 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

Hariom Kumar vs Dr. Manoj Agrawal, Chief Medical Officer, Lko.

Rakesh Verma vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Deptt., Lko. and Others

Mohd. Aiyub Ansari vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Sectt. Lko and Another

Anil Kumar Gupta and Another vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 2 Others

Rananjay Singh Sengar vs Sanjiv Kumar Addl. Secy. Union of India and Central Regist. of Coop. Societies New Delhi and Others

Mohd. Furqan and 2 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Deptt. Govt. Civil Sectt. Lko and Another