Allowed

Chotu v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home Lko. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC22 Aug 2024BAIL/8858/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal bail application where the court allowed release on personal sureties despite alleged rape charge incorporated late in 164 statement, noting FIR had no such charge and victim was a minor.

What did the court decide?

Released on bail on furnishing personal bonds and two reliable sureties of Rs.20,000/- each with conditions to attend hearings, not commit offences, and not tamper with evidence.

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

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:57199

¶2

Court No. - 12

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 8858 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Chotu Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home Lko. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Sanjay Prakash Tiwari,Rashmi Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J.

¶6

1. Supplementary affidavit filed today in Court is taken on record.

¶7

2 . Heard learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned A.G.A. and perused the record. Despite service of notice, no one appeared on behalf of the complainant.

¶8

3 . The applicant seeks enlargement on bail in FIR No.254 of 2024, under Sections 354, 452, 376 (2)(N), 506, 120B IPC and Section 5(L)/6, 7/8 of POCSO Act, Police Station Kotwali Dehat, District Gonda.

¶9

4 . In terms of the FIR in question lodged under Sections 354, 452 IPC read with Section 7/8 of POCSO Act on 30.05.2024, it was alleged that on 29/30.05.2024, when the daughter of the informant aged about 15 years was sleeping at her home, the applicant along with other accused came and started misbehaving with her. It was also alleged that the applicant was subsequently caught by the brother of the victim. No allegation of rape was levelled, however, in the statement under Section 161 of Cr.P.C., the victim stated that on the said date, the applicant had come and was caught by her brother. She also alleged that in the past also, the applicant had committed wrong on her. It was stated in the statement under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. that physical relations were formed in between them for the last one and a half years and based upon the said statement, the applicant is being implicated under Section 376 of IPC.

¶10

5. Learned A.G.A. vehemently opposed the bail prayer.

¶11

6. Considering the fact that no allegation of the offence under Section 376 IPC was levelled in the FIR and for the first time, in the statement under Section 164 of Cr.P.C., the allegation of rape was levelled for a span of one and a half years; the

¶12

tentative age of the victim is 16 years coupled with the fact that the applicant has no criminal antecedents and is languishing in jail since 31.05.2024, I am of the view that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed .

¶13

7. Let the applicant Chotu be released on bail in the aforesaid first information report 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:

¶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 :- 22.8.2024 akverma

¶18

Digitally signed by :- ASHOK KUMAR VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Chotu v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home Lko. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chotu v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home 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

Pappu Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lucknow and 3 Others

Khaleel Ahmad S/O Late Mohd. Idreesh (Second Bail) Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home

Imtiyaaz Vs State of U.P Thru. Prin.Secy. Home Lko

Lateef Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 3 Others

Sana Ullah Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Surjeet Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.