Allahabad High Court
Prabhanshu Yadav @ Chhotu vs State Of U.P. on 18 October, 2019
Author: Rajeev Singh
Bench: Rajeev Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH ?Court No. - 11 Case :- BAIL No. - 9879 of 2019 Applicant :- Prabhanshu Yadav @ Chhotu Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Jaikaran Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Rajeev Singh,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A for the State of U.P. and perused the record.
The present bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant in Case Crime No.160 of 2019 under Sections 376, 504, 506 I.P.C and Section 3/4 POCSO Act, Police Station- Gadaganj, District-Raebareli, with the prayer to enlarge him on bail.
The submissions of learned counsel for the applicant are that the applicant is innocent person and has been falsely implicated in the case, he is having no previous criminal history. It is further submitted on behalf of applicant that the applicant and prosecutrix were in relation since last one year, as it is admitted by the prosecutrix in her statement before the Medical Officer. He has further submitted that when the prosecutrix became pregnant, then the FIR was lodged by the informant. He has further submitted that the statement of prosecutrix under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. was recorded in which she stated that they were in relation since last one year and the applicant was making physical relation forcibly is incorrect. It is admitted case of the prosecution that the prosecutrix was aged about 17 years and 9 months at the date of incident and it is further stated in her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. that when the applicant refused to solemnize marriage, then the criminal case was registered. It is a case of consensual relations. In these circumstances, the applicant is entitled for bail. In case of being enlarged on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.
Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for grant of bail to the applicant and submitted that as per the radiological report, the age of the prosecutrix is 17 years, but it is not disputed that the father of the prosecutrix has admitted that the age of the prosecutrix is 17 years and 9 months and it is also not disputed that the prosecutrix was in relation with the applicant and she never informed to any other persons, in case the applicant was making physical relation with her forcibly.
Considering the rival submissions of learned counsel for parties, material available on record as well as totality of fact and circumstances, and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I am of the view that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail.
Let applicant -Prabhanshu Yadav @ Chhotu- be released on bail in Case Crime No.160 of 2019 under Sections 376, 504, 506 I.P.C and Section 3/4 POCSO Act, Police Station- Gadaganj, District-Raebareli, on his furnishing personal bond and two reliable sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions:-
(1) Applicant will not try to influence the witnesses or tamper with the evidence of the case or otherwise misuse the liberty of bail.
(2) Applicant will fully cooperate in expeditious disposal of the case and shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when witnesses are present in the Court.
(3) Applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (a) opening of the case, (b) framing of charge; and (c) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C.
Any violation of above conditions will be treated misuse of bail and learned Court below will be at liberty to pass appropriate order in the matter regarding cancellation of bail.
Order Date :- 18.10.2019 Amit/-