Allowed

Anil Kumar v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC25 Jan 2024BAIL/898/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bail application for offences including kidnapping, rape and attempt to murder under IPC and POCSO Act arising from FIR alleging abduction of a 17-year-old girl. Court found no corroboration of rape or attempt-to-murder allegations in medical evidence or victim's statements, and conflicting age records. Bail allowed with conditions.

What did the court decide?

Applicant Anil Kumar released on bail on furnishing personal bonds and two reliable sureties of Rs.20,000/- each to the satisfaction of the court concerned, subject to specified conditions regarding a

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

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:32060

¶2

Court No. - 12

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 898 of 2024 Applicant :- Anil Kumar Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And 3 Others

¶4

Counsel for Applicant :- Narsingh Bahadur Singh,Archana Rawat,Mukesh Kumar,Rahul Kumar Kaushal Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J.

¶6

Counter affidavit filed today is taken on record.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned A.G.A. and perused the record. No one appeared on behalf of opposite party no.2 despite service of notice.

¶8

The applicant seeks enlargement on bail in FIR No.135 of 2023, under Sections 363, 366, 328, 307, 342, 376-D, 506 IPC and 5/6 POCSO Act, Police Station Nigohan, DistrictLucknow.

¶9

In terms of the FIR, it was alleged that on 27.08.2023 at about 06:00 PM, daughter of the informant aged about 17 years was taken away by the accused named in the FIR and on 28.08.2023 she was dropped outside the village. The allegations were leveled for an offence under Sections 363, 366, 328, 307, 342, 376-D, 506 IPC read with Section of 5/6 POCSO Act and in the light of the said allegations the Counsel for the applicant draws my attention to the statement of the victim recorded under Section 161 CrPC, wherein she stated that on the said date, the said three accused had made her sit on a motorcycle by use of force and despite resistance she was taken to a lonely place in jungle and her hands and legs were tied and thereafter she became unconscious and she did not remember as to what had happened to her. She further stated that outside the village, an attempt was made to hang her to death and was in fact hanged with the use of dupatta . A similar statement was given under Section 164 CrPC.

¶10

In the light of said allegations, learned counsel for the applicant draws my attention to the medical on record, wherein the victim has herself stated before the medical authorities that, she was taken on a motorcycle and was administered food as a result whereof she slept and after she woke up she saw that she was lying outside the village. Medical on record also does not corroborate any allegations of wrong doing on the victim. The tentative age of the victim as per the FIR is 17 years. Thus in

¶11

view of the said facts, learned counsel for the applicants argues that the applicants who have no criminal history and are in custody since 05.09.2023 may be enlarged on bail.

¶12

Learned A.G.A. strongly opposes the bail application by arguing that the date of birth of the victim, as per the school records is 10.03.2009, as such considering the age of the victim, the bail application deserves to be rejected.

¶13

Considering the submissions made at the bar, prima facie, considering the allegations made in the FIR and in the statements of the victim recorded under Sections 161 and 164 CrPC as well as her statement made before medical authorities, there was no averment with regard to any wrong being committed on the victim, the same is also not corroborated by the medical on record. As regards the age, the informant herself has disclosed the age as 17 years, whereas the document relied upon by the learned AGA points out the age of the victim at around 14 years, thus there is no definite document to conclusively form any opinion with regard to the age of the victim at this stage.

¶14

Considering the fact that allegations under Section 376 or 307 IPC are neither corroborated by any material nor have they been specifically stated against the applicants, therefore the applicants who have no criminal antecedents and are in custody since 05.09.2023, deserve to be released on bail. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed.

¶15

Let the applicant Anil Kumar be released on bail in the abovesaid first information report number 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:

¶16

(a) The applicant shall execute a bond to undertake to attend the hearings;

¶17

(b) The applicant shall not commit any offence similar to the offence of which he is accused or suspected of the commission; and

¶18

(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.

¶19

Order Date :- 24.4.2024/Vipul

¶20

Digitally signed by :- VIPUL PRATAP GOGAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Anil Kumar v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anil Kumar v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. 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

Santosh @ Sandeep Vs State of U.P.

Vinod Kashyap Vs State of U.P. Thru.Its Prin. Secy. H. and 3 Ors.

Shiv Nandan Shukla Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt., Civil Secrt. Lko.

Kuldeep @ Babu Vs State of U.P Thru. Prin. Addil. Chief Secy. Deptt. Home Lko.

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

Ashish Gupta @ Anshu Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.