High Court · 2025
Case Details
Acts & Sections
Cited in this judgment
3. Heard Sri Amar Bahadur Maurya, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Ashutosh Kumar Pandey, Advocate holding brief of Sri Lackey Keshari, learned counsel for the informant as well as Sri Pranshu Kumar, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
4. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No.203 of 2024, under Sections 64(2)m, 137(2), 351(3), 352 B.N.S.S. and 5L/6 POCSO Act, Police Station- Dhanapur, District- Chandauli, during the pendency of trial. PROSECUTION STORY:
5. The applicant is stated to have enticed away the minor daughter of the informant aged about 12 years on 19.11.2024 at about 08:00 a.m. The applicant is even stated to have threatened the informant to marry her daughter. ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF APPLICANT:
6. The applicant is absolutely innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case.
7. The FIR is delayed by about four days and there is no explanation of the said delay caused.
8. The victim is major, although she is stated to be 12 years old as per the school certificate, but the said school certificate has no evidentiary value. As per the ossification test report, her age has come out to be between 18-20 years.
9. It is true that applicant is a married person having one daughter from his marriage, but the case, if any, may not go beyond deleted Section 497 I.P.C., which was declared ultra vires by the Supreme Court in the case of Joseph Shine v. Union of India, AIR 2018 SC 4898.
10. There is no medical corroboration of the incident, as such, the applicant is entitled for bail. There is no criminal history of the applicant. The applicant is languishing in jail since 16.12.2024 and is ready to cooperate with trial. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail. ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF STATE/OPPOSITE PARTY:
11. The bail application has been opposed on the ground that as per the birth certificate of the victim, which is a valid document as per Section 94 of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, her date of birth is 16.8.2012, as such, the ossification test report cannot be taken into consideration.
3. Heard Sri Amar Bahadur Maurya, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Ashutosh Kumar Pandey, Advocate holding brief of Sri Lackey Keshari, learned counsel for the informant as well as Sri Pranshu Kumar, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
4. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No.203 of 2024, under Sections 64(2)m, 137(2), 351(3), 352 B.N.S.S. and 5L/6 POCSO Act, Police Station- Dhanapur, District- Chandauli, during the pendency of trial. PROSECUTION STORY:
5. The applicant is stated to have enticed away the minor daughter of the informant aged about 12 years on 19.11.2024 at about 08:00 a.m. The applicant is even stated to have threatened the informant to marry her daughter. ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF APPLICANT:
6. The applicant is absolutely innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case.
7. The FIR is delayed by about four days and there is no explanation of the said delay caused.
8. The victim is major, although she is stated to be 12 years old as per the school certificate, but the said school certificate has no evidentiary value. As per the ossification test report, her age has come out to be between 18-20 years.
9. It is true that applicant is a married person having one daughter from his marriage, but the case, if any, may not go beyond deleted Section 497 I.P.C., which was declared ultra vires by the Supreme Court in the case of Joseph Shine v. Union of India, AIR 2018 SC 4898.
10. There is no medical corroboration of the incident, as such, the applicant is entitled for bail. There is no criminal history of the applicant. The applicant is languishing in jail since 16.12.2024 and is ready to cooperate with trial. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail. ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF STATE/OPPOSITE PARTY:
11. The bail application has been opposed on the ground that as per the birth certificate of the victim, which is a valid document as per Section 94 of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, her date of birth is 16.8.2012, as such, the ossification test report cannot be taken into consideration.