Allowed

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

Allahabad HC11 Sept 2024BAIL/9677/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge allowed bail to the applicant in a crime involving abduction and sexual assault. The court noted the victim's failure to support the prosecution version in recorded statements and her pregnancy, deferring age determination to the trial court under the Juvenile Justice Act, citing the applicant's clean record.

What did the court decide?

Defendant released on bail on furnishing personal bonds and two sureties of Rs.20,000 each.

Rajneesh vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko and 3… — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:62688

¶2

Court No. - 12

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 9677 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Rajneesh Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Smriti Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned A.G.A. and perused the record.

¶7

No one appears on behalf of the respondent no.2 despite notice.

¶8

The F.I.R. in question was lodged as a missing person report alleging therein that the daughter of the informant was enticed away by the applicant. Subsequently, in the two statements recorded under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C., the victim did not support the prosecution story rather stated that both of them had married out of their own free will.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that both the victim and the applicant had married at a temple. The victim is pregnant. There is no definite document to ascertain the correct age of the prosecutrix. The determination of the age of the victim shall be made by the trial court at the time of trial as per the mandate of Section 94 of the Juvenile Justice Act. Hence, the applicant who is languishing in jail since 23.5.2024 having no criminal history, may be enlarged on bail.

¶10

Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail.

¶11

Considering the two statements of the victim recorded under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. not corroborating the prosecution version and the victim is found pregnant; the determination of the tentative age of the victim shall be decided by the trial court at the time of trial as per the mandate of Section 94 of the Juvenile Justice Act and the fact that the applicant is languishing in jail since 23.5.2024 having no criminal history and without

¶12

expressing any opinion on merit, I am of the view that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail.

¶13

Accordingly, the application for grant of bail is allowed.

¶14

Let the applicant Rajneesh be released on bail in FIR/ Case Crime No.35 of 2024, under Sections 363, 366, 376 I.P.C. and Section 5j(2)/6 of the 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 :-

¶15

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

¶16

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

¶17

(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.

¶18

It is further provided that in case the applicant resiles from the factum of marriage, the victim would be at liberty to file a bail cancellation application.

¶19

Order Date :- 11.9.2024/Shukla

¶20

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

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajneesh 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

Aftab @ Hamza Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lucknow

Kundan Vishwakarma Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Secrett. U.P. Lko.

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

Sateesh vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Sectt. Lko and 3 Others

Asif vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Roshan Kumar vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt., Lko.