Allahabad High Court
Sumeet Awasthi vs State Of U.P. on 25 March, 2021
Bench: Dinesh Kumar Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. - 16
Case :- BAIL No. - 3801 of 2021
Applicant :- Sumeet Awasthi
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Ramakar Shukla,Ashwani Kumar Dwivedi
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar Singh,J.
Heard learned counsel for applicant as well as learned counsel for the State and perused the record.
This bail application has been moved by the accused-applicant for grant of bail in FIR No.18 of 2021, under Sections 363, 366 I.P.C., Police Station Krishna Nagar, District Lucknow.
As per FIR, the allegations against the accused is that he enticed away the prosecutrix, aged about 15 years. The prosecutrix, however, refused to undergo the medical examination. In her statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. the prosecutrix has stated that she became friendly with the accused applicant in June, 2020 and thereafter they started chatting on Instagram. First time both of them met on 02.01.2021 at the residence of prosecutrix. On the date of incident the prosecutrix called the accused applicant to go somewhere else. Accused applicant used to tell the prosecutrix that he was in love with her and he would marry her. However, before they could fled away from Lucknow both were apprehended from the Alambagh Bus Station.
Learned counsel for the accused applicant submits that the accused applicant has not applied any force or coercion or undue influence against the prosecutrix. The prosecutrix willingly came to Alambagh Bus Station and she called the accused applicant to reach there. He further submits that in the light of the judgment in the case of S.Vardharajan vs State of Maharastra: 1965 AIR SC 942, if a minor voluntarily comes and lives with a major person, the person does not owe the duty to send back the minor to his/her legal guardian.
On the other hand, Sri Umesh Singh, learned counsel for the State has opposed the bail application and has submitted that the accused applicant lured the minor aged about 13-14 years. He polluted her mind by telling her that he was in love with her and would marry her. He further submits that the accused applicant was 22 years of age at the time of incident and was a man of discretion and he should have been careful and exercise his discretion while going with a minor. Looking to the age of the applicant, he is not entitled for grant of bail.
Considering the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the applicant as well as State and looking into the facts and circumstances of the case, particularly, statement of the prosecutrix recorded under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. wherein prosecutrix has not alleged any wrong doing by the accused applicant except that he became friendly with her and he used to tell her that he was in love with her and he would marry her, no offence is made out against the applicant on the basis of statement of the prosecutrix.
Considering the aforesaid statement, the accused applicant, who is in jail since 14.01.2021, I am of the considered view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is, thus, allowed.
Let the accused-applicant Sumeet Awasthi involved in aforesaid case be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond with two sureties to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions:-
(i) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law.
(ii) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code.
(iii) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence, proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued and the applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code.
(iv) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. 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.
Order Date :- 25.3.2021
Anand Sri./-
