Allowed

Tinchu Alias Sarvesh Kumar and 2 Others v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC1 Nov 2018BAIL/16164/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A bail application by three accused in a POCSO and IPC case was allowed. The court found it a fit case for bail as the prosecutrix exculpated the applicants during trial, despite prior inculpatory statements attributed to police coercion.

What did the court decide?

The applicants were released on bail upon executing a personal bond, furnishing two sureties, and adhering to conditions to not tamper with evidence or witnesses and to appear before the trial court.

Tinchu Alias Sarvesh Kumar and 2 Others Vs… — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 53

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 16164 of 2018

¶3

Applicant :- Tinchu Alias Sarvesh Kumar And 2 Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Prem Chandra Dwivedi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble J.J. Munir,J.

¶5

This is a bail application on behalf of Tinchu alias Sarvesh Kumar, Dinesh and Chhota alias Atendra in connection with Case Crime No.441 of 2017 under Sections 363, 366, 376D I.P.C. and 3/4 POCSO Act, P.S. Etmadpur, District Agra.

¶6

Heard Sri Prem Chand Dwivedi, learned counsel for the applicants and Sri D.P.S.Chauhan, learned AGA along with Sri Abhinav Tripathi, learned counsel on behalf of the State.

¶7

The submission of learned counsel for the applicants is that the applicants are not nominated in the first information report or in the statement under section 161 Cr.P.C. by the prosecutrix but their names were brought in through the statement of the prosecutrix recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. He has invited the attention of the Court to the deposition of the prosecutrix in the ongoing trial brought on record through a supplementary affidavit (that includes certified copies) which shows that the prosecutrix has specifically said that she was not ravished by the three applicants here or taken away by blandishment. She has been declared hostile and cross-examined by the prosecution, which she has withstood. Upon being confronted during cross-examination with her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. that inculpates the applicants, she said that the said statement has been made at the bidding of " Darogaji "; thus, she has stood by her statement so far as the applicants are concerned.

¶8

Learned AGA has opposed the prayer for bail and submits that the stand of the prosecutrix in her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. is inculpatory and whatever has come in evidence during the ongoing trial is to be appreciated by the trial court. It is, however, not denied that the prosecutrix in her deposition during the trial has spoken exculpatory for each of the three applicant.

¶9

Considering the overall facts and circumstances, the nature of allegations, the gravity of offence, the severity of punishment, the evidence appearing in the case, in particular, the evidence in the dock, where the prosecutrix in unqualified terms exculpated

¶10

the applicants, but without expressing any opinion on merits, this Court finds it to be a fit case for bail.

¶11

Accordingly, the bail application stands allowed.

¶12

Let the applicant Tinchu alias Sarvesh Kumar, Dinesh and Chhota alias Atendra in connection with Case Crime No.441 of 2017 under Sections 363, 366, 376D I.P.C. and 3/4 POCSO Act, P.S. Etmadpur, District Agra be released on bail on executing a personal bond and furnishing two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:

¶13

i) The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence.

¶14

ii) The applicant shall not threaten or harass the prosecution witnesses.

¶15

iii) The applicant shall appear on the date fixed by the trial court.

¶16

iv) The applicant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which the applicant is accused, or suspected of the commission.

¶17

v) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade such person from disclosing facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶18

In case of default of any of the conditions enumerated above, the complainant would be free to move an application for cancellation of bail before this Court.

¶19

Order Date :- 1.11.2018

¶20

R./

Tinchu Alias Sarvesh Kumar and 2 Others v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tinchu Alias Sarvesh Kumar and 2 Others v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mohit Kumar Vs State of U.P.

Smt. Ram Devi Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Beerbal Vs State of U.P.

Data Ram Vs State of U.P.

Boby Vs State of U.P.

Sarwar Vs State of U.P.