Court No. - 52
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 10475 of 2021 Petitioner :- Mohd. Abid @ Monu And 3 Others Respondent :- State Of U P And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Dharmendra Singh,Sushma Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
Hon'ble Vivek Kumar Birla,J. Hon'ble Shree Prakash Singh,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned AGA appearing for the State respondents and perused the record.
Present petition has been filed for quashing the first information report dated 1.6.2019 in Case Crime No. 337 of 2019, under Sections 363, 366, 376 IPC and 3/4 of POCSO Act, P.S. Auraiya, District Auraiya.
Admittedly, a Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application u/s 438 Cr.P.C. No. 14523 of 2021 was rejected vide order 24.9.2021. The said order is quoted as under:
"Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA for the State and perused the record.
This anticipatory bail application has been filed by the applicant- in Case Crime No. 337 of 2019, under sections 363, 366, 376 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 POCSO Act, P.S.- Auraiya, District Auraiya.
The FIR version is that on the date of incident, the applicant with other co-accused persons enticed away the minor daughter of the informant and ornaments worth Rs. 80,000/- and cash of Rs. One lakh and fifty thousand were also taken away.
Submission of the learned counsel for the applicant is that both the sides have solemnized marriage and they are living together. It has been also submitted that no such offence has been committed by the applicant and he has been falsely implicated in this case. Therefore, it is a fit case for anticipatory bail.
Learned AGA submits that the age of the victim was 16 years at that time when she was enticed away by the applicant. The acquisitions against the applicant is made in the offence under Section 376 IPC and the same has been committed against the minor girl. As such, the applicant may avail the opportunity of regular bail before the appropriate court.
Considered the submission of both the sides.
It appears that serious allegations have been made against the applicant for the offence of rape and also for the offence under the POCSO Act. It is pertinent to mention that the POCSO Act has been enacted with the object to prevent the sexual abuse of children in case of such kind of acquisition, if anticipatory bail is permitted it will frustrated the very purpose of the enactment. As such, I do not find any force in the anticipatory bail application, hence, the same is dismissed."
Therefore, it is clear that anticipatory bail was filed after registration of the first information report and this Court has already applied its mind.
In such view of the mater, we do not find any good ground to take a different view in this matter.
Present petition is accordingly dismissed.
Order Date :- 20.12.2021 Abhishek