Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2025 DAILYLAW 169752 (ALL)

DEEPAK v. STATE OF U.P. THRU. PRIN. SECY. HOME LKO. AND 3 OTHERS

BAIL/12874/2024 · 2025-04-30

Subhash Vidyarthi

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:24863 Court No. - 15 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 12874 of 2024 Applicant :- Deepak Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Dileep Kumar Tiwari,Md.Khurshed Ahmad Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,J. 1. Heard Sri Dinesh Kumar Ojha, learned counsel for the applicant, Mr. Diwakar Singh, the learned A.G.A. and perused the record. 2. The instant application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 429 of 2024, under Sections 137(2), 87, 127(4), 65(1) of B.N.S. 2023 and Section 3/4, POCSO Act, Police Station Bachhrawan, District Raebareli. 3. The aforesaid case has been registered on the basis of an F.I.R. lodged on 21.07.2024 stating that the informant’s daughter aged 15 years had gone to attend coaching classes at about 7.00 a.m. on 21.07.2024, but she did not come back. 4. In the statement of the victim recorded under Section 180, B.N.S.S. she stated that one Priyanshi had forcibly made her talk to the applicant and had threatened to go with him and had stated that the applicant would teach her properly and get her employed. She came to Bachhrawan on 21.07.2024 and thereafter she did not remember as to where did the applicant take her. She further stated that the applicant used to come merely to give her meals and she stayed in a room alone for 22 days. In response to a question put to her as to whether any misdeed was committed against her, she stated that she did not remember anything. She also stated that she knows the applicant since March. 5. The medico-legal examination report of the victim mentions no mark of injury or sign of use of force. 6. In the statement of the victim recorded under Section 183, B.N.S.S. she stated that she knows the applicant since March 2024 and she used to talk to him on phone. She had gone with him, as he had offered her to show Lucknow. She had slept in the train and she did not as to where did she get down. The applicant kept her in a room for 22 days. She stated that she remained under dizziness and she did not remember as to whether the applicant had made physical relations with her. She categorically stated that she had gone with the applicant with her own freewill, but she did not know as to where did the applicant take her. 7. In the affidavit filed in support of the bail-application, it has been stated that the applicant is a youngman, aged 18 years, having no criminal history and He has been falsely implicated in the present case. 8. The State has filed a counter-affidavit annexing therewith copies of material collected during investigation and a copy of the chargesheet submitted on 30.08.2024. 9. A rejoinder affidavit has been filed on behalf of the applicant disputing the averments made in the counter-affidavit. 10. Having considered the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view the fact that the applicant is a youngman, aged about 18 years, having no criminal history, the victim has stated that she had gone with the applicant out of her own freewill and she has stated that she does not rememeber as to whether the applicant has made physical relations with her, and the medico-legal examination report does not indicate use of force by the applicant, coupled with the fact that the applicant is languishing in jail since 15.08.2024, whereas the investigation stands concluded and chargesheet has been filed on 30.08.2024, 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. 11. Accordingly, this bail application stands allowed. 12. Let the applicant- Deepak 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:- (i) the applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence; (ii) the applicant shall not pressurize the prosecution witnesses; (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. (Subhash Vidyarthi, J.) Order Date :- 30.4.2025 A.Nigam Digitally signed by :- ANUJ NIGAM High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench