Ankit vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:52762

Court No. - 65

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 6501 of 2025 Applicant :- Ankit Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Rajesh Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.

¶5

List has been revised.

¶6

Learned State Law Officer has informed that notice to the informant has been served on 16.2.2025.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the applicant as well as Ms. Ifrah Islam, learned State Law Officer and perused the material placed on record.

¶8

Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 86 of 2024, under Sections 363, 366, 376 I.P.C. and 3/4 POCSO Act, Police Station Kadaura, District Jalaun, during the pendency of trial.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the applicant is absolutely innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. The FIR is delayed by nine hours and there is no explanation of the said delay caused.

¶10

It is further stated that the victim is the consenting party, as is evident from her statement recorded u/s 164 Cr.P.C. By her looks, she seems to be major, although she is stated to be marginally less than 16 years old as per Class Vth Certificate, which has no evidentiary value as per Section 94 of The Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015.

¶11

There is no criminal history of the applicant. The applicant is languishing in jail since 7.6.2024. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶12

Learned State Law Officer has vehemently opposed the bail application but has not disputed the aforesaid submissions of learned counsel for the applicant.

¶13

The Supreme Court in the case of Niranjan Singh and another vs. Prabhakar Rajaram Kharote and others AIR 1980 SC 785 has avoided detailed examination of the evidence and elaborate

¶14

documentation of the merits of the case as no party should have the impression that his case has been prejudiced. A prima facie satisfaction of case is needed but it is not the same as an exhaustive exploration of the merits in the order itself.

¶15

In the case of P. Yuvaprakash vs. State Rep. by Inspector of Police, AIR 2023 SC 3525, the Supreme Court has observed that in the absence of records relating to the birth of the victim, no other documents except the Matriculation or equivalent certificate from the concerned examination board or certificate by a corporation, municipal authority or a Panchayat can be relied upon to ascertain the age of the victim.

¶16

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, the evidence on record, and taking into consideration the settled law of the Supreme Court passed in Satender Kumar Antil vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and Ors., 2022 INSC 690 and Manish Sisodia vs. Directorate of Enforcement, 2024 INSC 595 and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed .

¶17

Let the applicant- Ankit, who is involved in aforementioned case crime be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions. Further, before issuing the release order, the sureties be verified.

¶18

(i) The applicant shall not tamper with evidence.

¶19

(ii) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the Trial Court on dates fixed for (1) opening of the case, (2) framing of charge and (3) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C./351 B.N.S.S. If in the opinion of the Trial Court absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the Trial Court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law.

¶20

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

¶21

It is made clear that observations made in granting bail to the applicant shall not in any way affect the learned trial Judge in forming his independent opinion based on the testimony of the witnesses.

¶22

Order Date :- 10.4.2025\Shalini

¶23

(Justice Krishan Pahal)

¶24

Digitally signed by :- SHALINI JAISWAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ankit v. State of U.P. 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Aasim vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Munna Yadav vs State of U.P.

Waris vs State of U.P.

Islam vs State of U.P. and Another

Sunil vs State of U.P.

Nemchand vs State of U.P. and 3 Others