In a bail application regarding the enticement of a minor girl, the court granted bail to the applicant, relying on the Larger Bench decision in Dataram Singh. The case involved allegations of false impication and delay in the FIR.
The applicant Sugriv Kumar is released on bail on a personal bond with two sureties, subject to conditions.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 55
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 26785 of 2018
Applicant :- Sugriv Kumar Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Ravindra Prakash Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Sami Ullah Khan
Hon'ble Vivek Kumar Singh,J.
Counter affidavit filed on behalf of the State is taken on record.
Heard Sri R.P.Srivatava, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri S.U.Khan, learned counsel for the complainant and Sri S.S.Tiwari, learned A.G.A. appearing for the State.
According to the prosecution version the complainant lodged FIR against five persons alleging that they have enticed away his minor daughter aged about 16 years when she had gone to answer the call of nature.
Learned counsel for the applicant in support of his prayer for bail submits that the applicant is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in the present case due to ulterior motive and he has committed no offence. It is next contended that the applicant is not named in the FIR.There is inordinate delay of about 12 days in lodging the report for which no plausible explanation has been given by the prosecution. The applicant and the complainant belong to the same village. It is next contended that the prosecutrix had fallen in love with the younger brother of the applicant namely Indresh Kumar and they were well known to each other. Now she has married with him. The prosecutrix had gone with Indresh Kumar out of her own volition and the applicant has no role to play in the present case. According to the medical report the age of the prosecutrix has been determined to be about 21 years. It is also pointed out by the learned counsel for the applicant that a Criminal Misc. Writ No.8789 of 2018 was filed before this Court in winch the arrest of the petitioners were stayed. This fact is mentioned in paragraph 13 of the affidavit filed in support of the bail application.In her statement recorded under section 164 Cr.P.C. the prosecutrix did not support the prosecution. version.Several other submissions in order to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against the applicant have also been placed forth before the court. The circumstances which, according to the counsel, led to the false implication of the accused has also been touched upon at length. It has been assured on behalf of the applicant that he is ready to cooperate with the process of law and shall faithfully make himself available before the court
whenever required. It has also been submitted that the applicant is languishing in jail since 9.6.2018. The applicant has no other reported criminal antecedent.
Learned counsel for the complainant and learned A.G.A. have vehemently opposed the prayer.
Considering the nature of accusation and the severity of punishment in case of conviction and the nature of supporting evidence, reasonable apprehension of tempering of the witnesses and prima facie satisfaction of the Court in support of the charge and reformative theory of punishment, and also considering the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties, larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India and the dictum of Apex Court in the case of Dataram Singh v. State of U.P. and another, reported in (2018) 3 SCC 22, the applicant is entitled to be released on bail.
Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case let the applicant Sugriv Kumar involved in Case Crime No. 39 of 2018, under Sections 363, 366, 368 I.P.C , P.S.Mahuli, DistrictSant Kabir Nagar be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:
(i) The applicant will co-operate with the trail and remain present personally on each and every date fixed after release.
(ii) The applicant will not tamper with the prosecution evidence and will not delay the disposal of trial in any manner whatsoever.
(iii) The applicant will not indulge in any unlawful activities.
(iv) The applicant will not misuse the liberty of bail in any manner whatsoever.
The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be verified by court concerned and in case of breach of any of the conditions mentioned above, court concerned will be at liberty to cancel the bail and send the applicants to prison.
Order Date :- 11.9.2018 IA
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in a case involving enticement of a minor girl.
Whether the false implication of the applicant and delay in FIR lodging supports the grant of bail.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Dataram Singh v. State of U.P. and anotherFollowed¶11
Dataram Singh v. State of U.P. and another, reported in (2018) 3 SCC 22 · Who else cites this
Sugriv Kumar
Vivek Kumar Singh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
