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

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:25103

Court No. - 15

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 1212 of 2025

Applicant :- Rinku Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Mithlesh Singh,Chandra Mohan Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,J.

¶6

Heard Ms. Mithlesh Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Anurag Verma, the learned A.G.A.-I.

¶7

The instant application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 43 of 2024, under Sections 363,366,376,506 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 POCSO Act, Police Station Purwa, District Unnao.

¶8

The aforesaid case has been registered on the basis of an F.I.R. lodged at about 16:40 on 04.03.2024 stating that the applicant had enticed away the informant’s daughter, aged 15 years, at about 4:00 p.m. on 09.02.2024.

¶9

In the statement of the victim recorded under Section 161, Cr.P.C. she stated that she used to talk to the applicant since before. She had gone with the applicant to Ludhiyana, where she stayed with him in a room for some months. Thereafter, the applicant started misbehaving with her and she came back home.

¶10

Medico-legal examination report of the victim mentions no mark of injury or sign of use of force.

¶11

In her statement recorded under Section 164, Cr.P.C. the victim stated that she loves the applicant. She had gone with him, married him and stayed with him. One month after the marriage the applicant started ill-treating her and she stated that she does not want to live with the applicant and her mother has brought her back from Ludhiyana. She also stated that earlier she used to talk to one Rajesh and she loved him.

¶12

In the affidavit filed in support of the bail-application, it has been stated that the applicant a young man aged 20 years. He

¶13

has no criminal history and he has been falsely implicated in this case.

¶14

The learned A.G.A. has opposed the bail-application and he has submitted that the victim is a minor and the applicant is not entitled to be released on bail. He has further stated that the allegations have been established during investigation and chargesheet has been submitted against the applicant. He has also filed a counter-affidavit annexing therewith the material collected during investigation and a copy of the chargesheet dated 22.12.2024.

¶15

Having considered the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view the statements of the victim, which indicate that the F.I.R. has been lodged after the victim’s matrimonial relations with the applicant turned sour; the victim has also stated that earlier she was in love with some other person and that the applicant is a young man aged 20 years, and is languishing in jail since 24.11.2024, whereas the investigation already stands concluded, without making any observation, which may affect the merits of the case, I am of the view that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in the aforesaid crime.

¶16

Accordingly, this bail application stands allowed .

¶17

Let the applicant- Rinku be released on bail in the aforesaid case on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of magistrate/court concerned, subject to following conditions:-

¶18

(i) the applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence;

¶19

(ii) the applicant shall not pressurize the prosecution witnesses;

¶20

(iii) the applicant shall appear on each and every date fixed by the trial court, unless his appearance is exempted by the learned trial court.

¶21

( Subhash Vidyarthi, J. )

¶22

Order Date :- 29.4.2025 A.Nigam

¶23

Digitally signed by :- ANUJ NIGAM High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Rinku v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rinku v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Shivam Verma Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and 3 Others

Rajendra @ Gyani Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Rahul Dubey Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Mohd. Mahtab vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Deptt. of Home and 3 Others

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

Sandeep Madheshiya vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home District Lko. and 3 Others