Allowed

Rahul @ Anand v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC9 Sept 2024BAIL/9586/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Allahabad High Court allowed a bail application for the applicant accused of offences under IPC and POCSO. Despite opposition, the court granted bail noting the victim's contradictory statements and lack of prior criminal history, while imposing standard bond conditions.

What did the court decide?

The applicant released on bail with personal bonds and two sureties of Rs. 20,000 each, subject to conditions to attend hearings and not induce witnesses or commit similar offences.

Rahul @ Anand vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl… — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:61993

¶2

Court No. - 12

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 9586 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Rahul @ Anand Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Ajmal Khan,Rajesh Kumar

¶5

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶6

Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned A.G.A. and perused the record. None turned up on behalf of the complainant despite service of notice.

¶8

2 . In terms of the FIR, a missing person report was lodged alleging that the daughter of the informant was enticed by the applicant, subsequently in the statement under Sections 161 & 164 Cr.P.C., the victim did not support the prosecution story. She also stated that she was in love with the applicant. The tentative age of the victim is around 18 years as per the medical examination.

¶9

3. Learned A.G.A. opposed the bail prayer.

¶10

4. Considering the two statements not supporting the prosecution story, the applicant who is in custody since 22.06.2024 and has no criminal history is enlarged on bail. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed .

¶11

5. Let the applicant Rahul @ Anand be released on bail in FIR/ Case Crime No. 120 of 2024, under Sections 363, 366, 376 IPC and Section 3/4 POCSO Act, Police Station Asoha, District Unnao, 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:

¶12

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

¶13

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

¶14

(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.

¶15

Order Date :- 9.9.2024 Arun

¶16

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

Rahul @ Anand v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rahul @ Anand v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Deptt. 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

Smt. Priyanka Singh vs Sujeet Kumar Singh

Meenu Sirah vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Mohammad Mukhtar vs Addl. Civil Judge (Senior Division) Court No. 24, Lko. and 4 Others

Shabnam vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lucknow and Another

Divya Singh vs Principaal Judge Family Court Hardoi and another

Nanku and another vs United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Through Branch Manager and another