Allowed

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

Allahabad HC4 Jul 2025NABAIL/749/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench (Karunesh Singh Pawar, J.; Order Date 4.7.2025; Neutral Citation 2025:AHC-LKO:38047) allowed anticipatory bail under Section 482 BNSS to Mohit Maurya in Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application No. 749 of 2025, arising from Case Crime No. 49/2025 (Sections 75(1)/76 BNS; Sections 7/8 POCSO Act, P.S. Ranipur, Bahraich). Relied on Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted: applicant to surrender before the trial court within twenty days; upon surrender, release on interim anticipatory bail on a personal bond and two sureties each of the same a

Mohit Maurya Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin… — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Allahabad HC (2025)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:38047

¶2

Court No. - 14

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No. - 749 of 2025 Applicant :- Mohit Maurya Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Lko. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Manoj Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.

¶5

The present bail application has been filed by the applicant under Section 482 BNSS apprehending his arrest in case crime No. 49/2025, under Sections 75(1)/76 of BNS and Section 7/8 of POCSO Act, P.S. Ranipur, District Bahraich.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned A.G.A. for the State. None appears on behalf of the complaint, although, as per the instruction of learned AGA, notice to the complainant is served.

¶7

The prosecution alleges that on 27.02.2025 at about 4:00 PM, the applicant molested the informant’s minor daughter, who was approximately 13 years old.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that charge sheet in the case has been filed. He has not arrested during investigation. He was given the benefit of Section 35 of BNSS. The radiological age of the victim has been found to be 17 years. It has been further submitted that margin of error in ascertaining age by radiological examination is two years on either side as held by Supreme Court in Jaya Mala versus Home Secretary, Government of Jammu & Kashmir and others (1982)2 SCC 538 and the applicant being the accused is entitled for giving the benefit on higher side.

¶9

It is also submitted that during medical examination of the

¶10

victim, no corroborative material has been found. He has drawn attention towards the statement of the victim under Section 180 BNSS wherein no allegation has been made against the applicant. While giving statement under Section 183 BNSS, she has supported the prosecution story by making improvement.

¶11

Learned counsel for the applicant has further submitted that entire prosecution story concocted by the victim under Section 183 BNSS has been falsified by an independent eye witness. The independent eye witness in her statement has changed the prosecution story stating that the victim was not present on the field where the alleged offence is said to have been occurred in her presence. Statement of the eye witness is on record as Annexure No. 11 to the bail application. In the statement under Section 183 BNSS, the same eye witness, has reiterated her version and has stated that the applicant was not present at the place of occurrence. It is thus, submitted on behalf of the applicant that the applicant has been falsely implicated just to injure his reputation.

¶12

It is also submitted that the applicant has cooperated during the course of investigation and undertakes to cooperate in the trial.

¶13

Learned A.G.A. has opposed the anticipatory bail application.

¶14

On due consideration to the statements of the victim as well as statements of eye witness; lack of medical corroboration, the filing of the charge sheet, and the applicant’s undertaking to cooperate in the trial, this Court is of the considered opinion that the applicant is entitled to be granted anticipatory bail, in view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sushila Aggarwal and others vs. State (NCT of Delhi) and another, (2020) 5 SCC 1, subject to his cooperation in the trial.

¶15

In view of the above, the accused-applicant is directed to surrender before the trial court within a period of twenty days

¶16

from today. Upon his surrender, the trial court shall release him on interim anticipatory bail, subject to his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each of the same amount, to the satisfaction of the trial court, with the following conditions:-

¶17

(i) The applicant shall refrain from directly or indirectly inducing, threatening, or promising any person familiar with the facts of the case in a manner that may dissuade them from revealing such facts before the Court or result in tampering with the evidence;

¶18

(ii) The applicant shall not travel outside India without prior permission from the Court;

¶19

(iii) The applicant shall not attempt to influence or intimidate any prosecution witness;

¶20

(iv) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on all scheduled dates unless specifically exempted from personal appearance;

¶21

(v) In the event of any violation of the aforementioned conditions, the trial court shall be at liberty to cancel the bail granted to the applicant;

¶22

Any other reasonable restrictions/conditions which the trial court may deem fit and proper can be imposed.

¶23

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

¶24

In view of the aforesaid, the application is allowed .

¶25

Order Date :- 4.7.2025 R.C.

¶26

Digitally signed by :- RAM CHANDER YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohit Maurya v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Ravindra Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko.

Sanjay Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Aafak Ahamad Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Lko. and Another

Mohd. Fayaz Ahmad @ Faizan Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Mohd. Sahil Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Govt. Lko

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