Dismissed

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

Allahabad HC17 Jul 2025ABAIL/599/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench rejected an anticipatory bail application filed by Alatamas in a case involving rape, criminal intimidation, and POCSO charges. The Court held that the serious nature of the offence, supported by the victim's statement and an independent witness, negated the claim of false implication.

What did the court decide?

Application for anticipatory bail rejected; applicant ordered to face trial.

Alatamas Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and… — Narcotics (NDPS) | Allahabad HC (2025)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:40940

¶2

Court No. - 14

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 599 of 2025

¶4

Applicant :- Alatamas Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Divyanshu Tripathi,Aman Kumar Shrivastav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.

¶6

As per the office report, the notices to the complainant are served. However, none appears on behalf of the complainant.

¶7

Heard learned counsel the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶8

The present application under Section 438 Cr.P.C./482 B.N.S.S. has been filed seeking anticipatory bail in FIR/Case Crime No. 146 of 2024, under Sections 354, 506 of IPC and Sections 7/8 of POCSO Act, P.S. Pasgawan, District Lakhimpur Kheri.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in the present case.

¶10

Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the anticipatory bail application and submitted that in broad daylight at the house of the aunt of the victim, the accused persons including the applicant have committed the offence. The victim is minor. He further submits that in the statement under Section 164 CrPC, the victim has supported the prosecution case so also the statement of the independent witness Yogesh Kumar who has also supported the prosecution case. Thus, it is evident that it is not a case of false implication.

¶11

Perused the record.

¶12

On due consideration to the fact that the offence is serious in nature; the victim has supported the prosecution case in her statement under Section 164 CrPC so also the statement of the independent witness Yogesh Kumar and the victim is minor. Hence, it cannot be said that the applicant has been falsely implicated in

¶13

the present case.

¶14

In view of the above, no ground for grant of anticipatory bail is made out. Accordingly, the anticipatory bail application is rejected .

¶15

Order Date :- 17.7.2025 Shravan

¶16

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

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Alatamas 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

Harsh Gupta Vs State of U.P. Thri. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Prince Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Mouji Lal and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Harshit vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home U.P. Lko. and 3 Others

Chandrika vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Deptt. Govt. Lko

Anuj Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.