BRAJESH KUMAR Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned Additional Government Advocate for the State of U.P. and perused the record.

(2.) The present bail application has been filed by the applicant seeking bail in Case Crime No. 284 of 2019, under Sections-363, 366, 376 I.P.C. and 5/6 POCSO Act, Police Station-Kotwali Dehat, District Hardoi.

(3.) Learned counsel for the applicant while pressing the present bail application submitted that accused-applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the instant case. It is submitted that offence, as alleged in the F.I.R., is not made out against the applicant. The F.I.R. was lodged by the informant alleging therein that the applicant enticed away the daughter of the informant, as such, initially the same was registered under Section 363, 366 I.P.C., however, after recovery of the victim, prosecution came to know about the age of the victim and on the basis of same Sections 376 I.P.C. and 5/6 POCSO Act have been added. He submitted that after being recovered the statement of victim was recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. As per this statement, the victim has not supported the story of the prosecution. In this statement, the victim stated that she on her own free will/ volition went with the applicant and solemnized the marriage with the applicant and from the wedlock they blessed with a girl child and at present she is one and half year old.