Allowed

Anuj @ Kundan v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Secrt. Lko. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC25 Jul 2024BAIL/7939/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench, allowed a bail application. The court rejected the prosecution's arguments regarding inconsistencies in the victim's statements and the delay in the medical examination, granting bail subject to a personal bond and two sureties.

What did the court decide?

Released on bail with a personal bond and two sureties of Rs.20,000/- each, subject to conditions to attend hearings and not tamper with evidence.

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

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:50290

¶2

Court No. - 12

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 7939 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Anuj @ Kundan Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Secrt. Lko. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Atma Ram Mishra,Samanvya Dhar Dwivedi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J.

¶6

1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA for the State; Shri Rohit Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the informant and perused the record.

¶7

2. The applicant seeks enlargement on bail in FIR No.166 of 2024, under Section 363, 366, 376, 504, 506 IPC & Section 3/4 of POCSO Act, P.S. Kotwali Rudauli, District Ayodhya/Faizabad.

¶8

3. In terms of the FIR, the informant who is also the victim, stated that the applicant used to harass her, however, no report was lodged and on 08.04.2024 at about 11 pm, when the victim went outside her home, the applicant and one other accomplice caught hold of her and after issuance of threat and showing of knife, she was taken with them. It was further stated that she was taken on a bus to Lucknow from Ayodhya and on 09.04.2024, the informant was left with her mother. In the statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C., the victim reiterated the version with regard to her being taken by use of force, however, she alleged that the offence was committed on a roof of the bus stop and on 09.04.2024, she was dropped at her brother-in-law's home. In the statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C., the victim alleged that the offence was committed in a room at Lucknow and on 09.04.2024, the applicant had dropped her with her mother. The medical on record which was conducted on 13.04.2024 indicates presence of fresh injuries on the private parts and bleeding was observed.

¶9

4. In the light of the said material, the submission of counsel for the applicant is that there are huge inconsistencies in the FIR; the statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C., and the statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C., with regard to places of incident. He further argues that in all the statements, the victim stated that she was sent back on 09.04.2024 by the applicant and thus, the presence of injury in the medical conducted on 13.04.2024 cannot be attributed to the applicant. He further argues that there is no definite document with regard to age of the victim

¶10

except a transfer certificate of Class 5^th and no medical with regard to determination of the age has been done in the case of the victim. In the light of the said, he argues that the applicant who has no criminal history and is in custody since 16.04.2024 may be enlarged on bail.

¶11

5. Learned counsel for the informant and learned AGA have opposed the bail application by arguing that the tentative age of the victim is around 14 years and the medical on record suggests that the victim was physically harmed. He further argues that although on record, the medical was done on 13.04.2024, however, in the preliminary medical report supplied across the Bar, it was observed that the patient came on 11.04.2024 at about 11:10 pm complaining of pain in abdomen and alleging rape on 08.04.2024. In the said preliminary examination as handed over, no tear/no abrasion was observed. The patient was referred for medical on 12.04.2024 and the actual medical examination was done on 13.04.2024, as such, considering the nature of the offence alleged, the bail application should be rejected.

¶12

6. Considering the submissions made at the Bar, it is clear that no missing person report was lodged with regard to the victim as allegedly she went missing on 08.04.2024. On 09.04.2024, allegedly, the victim met her mother, however, the FIR was lodged on 10.04.2024 at 23:51 hours. The medical which indicates presence of bleeding on the private parts was done on 13.04.2024 after about five days of the alleged incident and after about four days of the girl being united with the mother. As such, considering the said inconsistencies coupled with the fact that there is no document to conclusively form any opinion with regard to age of the victim on the basis of document as prescribed under Section 94 of the Juvenile Justice Act, a case for bail is made our, particularly, when the applicant has no criminal history and is in custody since 16.04.2024. In view thereof, the application is allowed.

¶13

7. Let the applicant Anuj @ Kundan be released on bail in aforesaid FIR number on his furnishing a personal bond with two sureties of Rs.20,000/- each to the satisfaction of 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 :- 25.7.2024 nishant

¶18

Digitally signed by :- NISHANT MOHAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Anuj @ Kundan v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Secrt. Lko. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anuj @ Kundan v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home 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

Rangilal Vs State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Sectt. Lko

Sujeet Kashyap Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and 4 Others

Gopi Chauhan Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko and 3 Others

Anuj @ Kundan Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Secrt. Lko. and 3 Others

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

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