Allowed

Pavan v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko. and Another

Allahabad HC6 Aug 2024CRLA/508/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed an appeal seeking bail. The appellant was accused of enticing a 15-year-old victim under the SC/ST Act, but the victim's statements denied allegations against him. The court found no evidence of enticing and granted bail.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order set aside. Appellant released on bail on personal bond with two sureties subject to conditions.

Pavan vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:66199

¶2

Court No. - 15

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 508 of 2024

¶4

Appellant :- Pavan Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko. And Another Counsel for Appellant :- O.P. Tiwari Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Ram Chandra Dwivedi,Uday Pratap Singh

¶5

Hon'ble Mohd. Faiz Alam Khan,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the appellant, Ms. Ruby Shukla, Advocate, holding brief of Shri Ram Chandra Dwivedi, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2, as well as learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶7

The instant criminal appeal under Section 14(A)(2) SC/ST Act has been filed by the appellant- Pavan for grant of bail and for setting aside/quashing the impugned order dated 07.02.2024 passed by the learned Special Judge, SC/ST Act/Additional District and Sessions Judge, Court No. 2, Unnao in Bail Application No.68 of 2024, arising out of Case Crime No.0258 of 2023, under Sections 363 and 366 IPC read with Section 3(2) (V) S.C./S.T. Act lodged at Police Station Auras, District Lucknow, during trial.

¶8

Learned counsel for the appellant, while pressing the appeal, submits that the appellant has been falsely implicated in this case and he has not committed any offence, as claimed by the prosecution. The FIR of the present case has been lodged by father of the victim alleging that the prosecutrix aged about 15 years has been enticed away by the appellant on 19.11.2023, however, on recovery of the victim/prosecutrix her statements were recorded under sections 161 and 164 CrPC and in both these statements she has not alleged any imputation/allegation against the appellant and has stated in categorically terms that she had left her home of her own will/volition and accompanied the appellant as she was in search of a job and no physical relationships were established between them.

¶9

Highlighting the above statements of the prosecutrix/victim, it is vehemently submitted that since nothing has been stated by the victim/prosecutrix against the appellant, no penal sections would attract. It is further submitted that the medical reports of the prosecutrix are also clean and the appellant was granted

¶10

interim bail by a coordinate bench of this court vide order dated 20.02.2024 subject to some conditions and none of the conditions imposed has been violated by the appellant and there is no apprehension that after being released on bail, he may flee from the course of law or may otherwise misuse the liberty.

¶11

Learned A.G.A. as well as Ms. Ruby Shukla, Advocate, holding brief of Shri Ram Chandra Dwivedi, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2, vehemently opposes the prayer of bail of the appellant on the ground that the age of the prosecutrix is about 15 years 7 months and she has been enticed away by the appellant and, thus, having regard to the age of the prosecutrix, the appellant is entitled to be released on bail.

¶12

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the record, it is reflected that though it is emerged that the age of the prosecutrix as per her educational credentials is about 15 years and 7 months, however, in her statements recorded under sections 161 and 164 CrPC she has not alleged any imputation against the appellant, rather stated to have accompanied the appellant and also that she was annoyed from her family members and had left her home on her own volition and in this background it is vehemently submitted on behalf of the appellant that there is no evidence at all pertaining to enticing away the prosecutrix. Medical reports of the prosecutrix are also clean and the appellant was also released on interim bail by a coordinate bench of this court and nothing has been brought before this court which may suggest that the liberty granted to the appellant has been misused by him. He is in jail in this case since 09.12.2023. Charge-sheet in this case has also been filed. There is no apprehension that after being released on bail, the appellant may flee from the course of law or may otherwise misuse the liberty. Considering all the facts and circumstances of the case and for the reasons mentioned herein above, a case for bail is emerging in favour of the appellant, however, the learned trial court appears to have committed an illegality, while rejecting the plea of bail of the appellant.

¶13

In result, the appeal is allowed and the impugned order passed by the trial court is set-aside . Pending application(s) shall stand disposed of.

¶14

Let the appellant- Pavan involved in above-mentioned case, be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions:-

¶15

(i) The appellant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence

¶16

by intimidating/pressurizing the witnesses, during the investigation or trial.

¶17

(ii) The appellant shall cooperate in the trial sincerely without seeking any adjournment.

¶18

(iii) The appellant shall not indulge in any criminal activity or commission of any crime after being released on bail.

¶19

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.

¶20

Identity, status and residence proof of the appellant and sureties be verified by the Court concerned before the bonds are accepted.

¶21

Observations made herein-above by this court are only for the purpose of disposal of this bail application and shall not be construed as an expression on the merits of the case

¶22

Order Date :- 24.9.2024 MVS/-

¶23

Digitally signed by :- MANOJ VIKRAM SINGH CHAUHAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Pavan v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pavan v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Shakeel and 2 Ors. Vs State of U.P.

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

Guddu @ Surendra Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lucknow and Another

Shivam Pandey vs State of U.P. Thru Secy. Home Deptt. Lko

Neeraj Lona @ Jailor vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Lko.

Vipin Kumar ( Vipin Kumar @ V.P. in Chargesheet) vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and 3 Others