Allowed

Rohit Kumar @ Rohit Gautam v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC21 Feb 2025BAIL/1660/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench (Neutral Citation 2025:AHC-LKO:29538); Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 1660 of 2025; decided 19.5.2025 by Subhash Vidyarthi, J. Bail allowed in POCSO/BNS enticement case involving alleged elopement with a 15-year-old; victim's consensual statements, clean criminal history, concluded investigation cited; release on personal bond and two sureties with standard

What did the court decide?

Release of the applicant on bail upon furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the magistrate/court concerned, subject to conditions: (i) not tamperin

Rohit Kumar @ Rohit Gautam vs State of U.P… — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Allahabad HC (2025)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:29538

¶2

Court No. - 15

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 1660 of 2025

¶4

Applicant :- Rohit Kumar @ Rohit Gautam Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Sachin Verma,Praveen Kumar Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,J.

¶6

Heard Sri Sachin Verma, learned counsel for the applicant, Mohd. Asif Khan, learned A.G.A-I for the State and perused the records.

¶7

The instant application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 227 of 2024 under Sections 137(2) , 87, 65(1) B.N.S. and Section 3/4 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, registered at Police Station- Gadaganj, District- Raebareli.

¶8

The aforesaid case has been registered on the basis of an F.I.R. lodged on 26.10.2024 stating that the applicant had enticed away the informant's daughter aged 15 years on 23.10.2024

¶9

In the statement of the victim recorded under Section 180 B.N.S.S as well as in her statement recorded under Section 183 B.N.S.S, she stated that she loves the applicant, she had gone with him out of her own free will, she stayed with him for three days and made physical relations willingly.

¶10

The medico legal examination report of the victim mentions no mark of injury or sign of use of force and the table for filling up details regarding sexual violence mentions "refused about any sexual act".

¶11

In the affidavit filed in support of the bail application, it has been stated that the applicant is an innocent person, he has been falsely implicated in the present case and he has no criminal history.

¶12

The State has filed a counter affidavit annexing therewith copies of material collected during investigation and a copy of the charge-sheet dated 01.12.2024.

¶13

Having considered the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view the consistent statements of the victim wherein she has not levelled any allegation against the applicant, coupled with the fact that the applicant has no criminal history and he is languishing in jail since 028.10.2024 whereas the investigation already stands concluded, I am of the view that the aforesaid facts are sufficient for making out a case for enlargement of the applicant on bail in the aforesaid crime.

¶14

Accordingly, this bail application stands allowed.

¶15

Let the applicant- Rohit Kumar @ Rohit Gautam be released on bail in the aforementioned 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:-

¶16

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

¶17

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

¶18

(iii) the applicant shall appear on each and every date fixed by the trial court.

¶19

Order Date :- 19.5.2025 Preeti.

¶20

Digitally signed by :- PREETI GAUTAM High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Rohit Kumar @ Rohit Gautam v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rohit Kumar @ Rohit Gautam 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

Shivam Mshra vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Santosh Tiwari vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Taekwondo Federation of India, Bengaluru Thru. Authorized Representative vs Union of India Thru. Ministry of Youth Affairs and Sports Deptt. of Sports Thru. Secy. and Others

Govind Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Home Lko.

Nanhe Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. (Home), Lko.

Basant Kumar Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another