Manoj vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:103586

Court No. - 64

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 18736 of 2025

Applicant :- Manoj Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Dipak Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Samit Gopal,J.

¶6

List revised.

¶7

Heard Sri Dipak Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Ajay Singh, learned A.G.A.-I for the State and perused the material on records.

¶8

This bail application under Section 483 of B.N.S.S., 2023 has been filed by the applicant- Manoj , seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No. 271 of 2024, under Sections 137(2), 87, 64(1) B.N.S. and Section 3/4 POCSO Act, Police Station Mangalpur, District Kanpur Dehat.

¶9

The first information report of the present matter was lodged on 23.10.2024 by Santosh Kumar Sharma against the applicant and 05 other persons alleging therein that his daughter aged about 16 years was lured and enticed away by Manoj Kumar who is the brother-in-law (sala) of Ram Asrey @ Dhannu of his village. The other accused persons have helped him in enticing her away. She has been taken on 17.10.2024 at about 7 pm. She was searched a lot but could not be traced.

¶10

On 18.06.2025 the following order was passed by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court:-

¶11

"1. Personal affidavit, filed by learned A.G.A., is taken on record.

¶12

2. In compliance of the order dated 06.06.2025, Superintendent of Police, Kanpur Dehat is present and filed his personal affidavit mentioning therein that the inquiry has been initiated against the negligent police official; one Sub Inspector of Police, Laxman Singh, who is prima facie responsible for supply of instructions to learned AGA, has also been suspended; and inquiry has been pending against him. It is further mentioned in the aforesaid personal affidavit that now the notice has been served upon the informant/victim.

¶13

3. From the perusal of the above personal affidavit, there is no negligence on the part of the Mr. Arvind Mishra, Superintendent of Police, Kanpur Dehat, therefore, his personal appearance is exempted.

¶14

4. Sri Pankaj Srivastava, Advocate holding brief of Sri Dipak Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicant seeks adjourment for the day.

¶15

5. On the request of learned counsel for the applicant, put up this case as fresh on 26.06.2025."

¶16

The records and the order dated 18.06.2025 show that notice has been served on

¶17

the first informant. Despite service of notice, no one appears on behalf of the first informant.

¶18

Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is submitted that the victim travelled from Kanpur Dehat to Delhi with the applicant but did not object the same or made any resistance about it. It is submitted that the relationship was a consensual relationship without any objection by the victim. It is submitted that there is contradiction in the statement of the victim recorded under Section 180 B.N.S.S. and Section 183 B.N.S.S. It is submitted that since the marriage of the victim was fixed somewhere else but she did not wanted to marry the said person and was in love with the applicant she went with him. The applicant has no criminal history as stated in para 21 and is in jail since 21.12.2024.

¶19

Per contra, learned counsel for the State vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that the applicant is named in the first information report, statements of the victim recorded during investigation. It is submitted that the victim is aged about 16 years as per the school records wherein her date of birth is mentioned as 01.06.2008. It is submitted that the consent of a minor cannot be looked into. It is submitted that there are allegations of the applicant committing rape upon the victim. It is submitted that the prayer for bail be rejected.

¶20

After having heard learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, it is evident that the applicant is named in the first information report and in the statements of the victim recorded during investigation. The victim is a minor girl aged about 16 years. The consent of minor is of no worth.

¶21

Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court does not find it a fit case for bail, hence, the bail application is rejected.

¶22

Pending application (s), if any, shall stand disposed of.

¶23

Order Date :- 3.7.2025 AS Rathore

¶24

(Samit Gopal,J.)

¶25

Digitally signed by :- ABHISHEK SINGH RATHOR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Manoj v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manoj v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Vaibhav vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Nikhat Parveen and Another vs State of U.P. and Another

Manoj vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Shyamlal vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Banti Rajput vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Ansab vs State of U.P. and 3 Others