Allahabad High Court
Manjeet Pasi vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others on 8 August, 2023
Bench: Sameer Jain
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:159213
Court No. - 70
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 32557 of 2023
Applicant :- Manjeet Pasi
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others
Counsel for Applicant :- Satyendra Kumar Mishra
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Sameer Jain,J.
1. Today, power has been filed by Sri Vijai Rai, learned Advocate, on behalf of the complainant, which is taken on record.
2. Heard Sri Satyendra Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Vijai Rai, learned counsel for the informant and Dr. S.B.Maurya, learned AGA-I, for the State.
3. The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant with the prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No.27 of 2023, under Sections 363, 366A and 376(3) IPC and Section 4 & 4(2) POCSO Act, Police Station Manikpur, District Chitrakoot during pendency of the trial.
4. FIR of the present case was lodged against the applicant on 26.3.2023 and according to the FIR, on 20.1.2023 applicant has enticed away the minor grand-daughter of the informant aged about 14 years and 6 months. It is further mentioned in the FIR that on 24.1.2023 a missing report with regard to prosecutrix has been lodged by the informant.
5. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that FIR of the present case was lodged after about three months from the date of incident and this fact itself shows that entire story narrated in the FIR against the applicant is totally false and baseless.
6. He further submits that although from the School Leaving Certificate of the prosecutrix it appears that at the time of incident she was around 14 and 1/2 years old but during investigation her ossification test was not conducted and merely on the basis of School Leaving Certificate at this stage it cannot be said that prosecutrix is below 18 years old girl.
7. He further submtis that prosecutrix in her both the statements recorded under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. disclosed her age 18 years and stated that she had gone along with applicant and also performed marriage with him and this fact clearly suggests that prosecutrix is a major girl.
8. He further submits that applicant is not having any previous criminal history and in the present matter he is in jail since 29.3.2023.
9. Per contra, learned AGA as well as learned counsel for the informant opposed the prayerfor bail and submitted that as per school record the prosecutrix is hardly 14 and 1/2 years old and, therefore, her consent is immaterial but both the learned counsels could not dispute the fact that except the School Leaving Certificate there is no other evidence with regard to age of prosecutrix on record and prosecutrix in her both the statements recorded under Section161 and 164 Cr.P.C.disclosed her age 18 years.
10. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case.
11. Although as per School Leaving Certificate, the age of the prosecutrix at the time of incident was around 14 and 1/2 years old but in view of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of P. Yuvaprakash Vs. State represented by Inspector of Police (Criminal Appeal No (S). 1898 of 2023 dated 18.7.2023 the School Leaving Certificate of a child for the purposes of her age is not admissible under the provisions of POCSO Act and in the present matter except the School Leaving Certificate, there is no other evidence with regard to the age of prosecutrix on record.
12. Further, prosecutrix in her both the statements recorded under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. categorically stated that she had gone along with applicant and also performed marriage with him and further FIR of the present case was lodged after about three months.
14. Law is settled that bail application should not be dismissed either for punitive or preventive purposes.
15. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case discussed above, in my view, applicant is entitled to be released on bail.
16. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the instant bail application is allowed.
17. Let the applicant-Manjeet Pasi 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 the court concerned with the following conditions:-
(i) The applicant shall appear before the trial court on the dates fixed, unless his personal presence is exempted.
(ii) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly, make inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or any police officer or tamper with the evidence.
(iii) The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal and anti-social activity.
18. In case of breach of any of the above condition, the prosecution will be at liberty to move an application before this Court for cancellation of the bail of the applicant.
19. It is clarified that the observations made herein are limited to the facts brought in by the parties pertaining to the disposal of bail application and the said observations shall have no bearing on the merits of the case during trial.
Order Date :- 8.8.2023
SKM
