Allowed

Amit Kumar @ Chhakki Lal v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC29 Nov 2018BAIL/27253/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bail application allowed for applicant accused of offences under IPC and POCSO. Court found fit for bail as prosecution witnesses deposed exculpatory evidence during trial, though trial merits not opined.

What did the court decide?

Released on personal bond and two sureties subject to conditions of not tampering with evidence, threatening witnesses, or committing similar offences.

Amit Kumar @ Chhakki Lal Vs State of U.P. — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 53

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 27253 of 2017

¶3

Applicant :- Amit Kumar @ Chhakki Lal Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Arvind Singh,Krishna Murari Tripathi

¶4

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble J.J. Munir,J.

¶6

This is an application for bail on behalf of the applicant, Amit Kumar @ Chhakki Lal in connection with Case Crime No. 129 of 2017, under Sections 363,366,376 IPC and Section 3/4 POCSO Act, P.S. Vidhuna, District Auraiya.

¶7

Heard Sri Rajeev Kumar Saxena, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Akhilesh Mishra, learned AGA alongwith Sri Avaneesh Shukla appearing for the State.

¶8

The submission of the learned counsel for the applicant is that he has been falsely implicated in the present crime. It is pointed out that though he is nominated by the informant, who is the father of the prosecutrix and the prosecutrix in her statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and 164 Cr.P.C., but in the ongoing trial the first informant as well as the prosecutrix have categorically deposed, in their respective examinations-in-chief, recorded in Special Case No. 27P/2017 pending before the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge First, Auraiya that the case was registered, and, statements given by them, under a misconception that was fomented by natives of the village. It is specifically said by the prosecutrix that she was never ravished by the applicant, and, that the two never had any illicit relations also. It is also said that on the date of occurrence, the prosecutrix was 19 years. The first informant, the father of the prosecutrix, has likewise spoken exculpatory. Both the

¶9

witnesses have been declared hostile and cross examined by the prosecution, where they have withstood the same and stuck to their stand that is exculpatory. The submission of the learned counsel for the applicant is that looking to the aforesaid dock evidence of the prosecutrix, it is not desirable to further detain the applicant in jail pending trial.

¶10

Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail and submits that during investigation, the stand of the prosecutrix as well as the first informant has been consistent. He submits that so far as the dock evidence of the informant and the prosecutrix is concerned, it is exculpatory but this Court cannot look into it as that is within the province of the trial court.

¶11

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature of allegations, the gravity of the offence, the severity of punishment, the evidence appearing in the case, in particular, the fact that the prosecutrix as well as the first informant have spoken exculpatory in their deposition before the trial Court, but without expressing any opinion on merits, this Court, finds it to be a fit case for bail.

¶12

The bail application, accordingly, stands allowed .

¶13

Let the applicant Amit Kumar @ Chhakki Lal involved in Case Crime No. 129 of 2017, under Sections 363,366,376 IPC and Section 3/4 POCSO Act, P.S. Vidhuna, District Auraiya be released on bail on executing his personal bond and furnishing two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:

¶14

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

¶15

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

¶16

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

¶17

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

¶18

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.

¶19

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.

¶20

Order Date :- 29.11.2018 BKM/-

Amit Kumar @ Chhakki Lal v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Amit Kumar @ Chhakki Lal 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Intazar Vs State of U.P.

Rajesh Gautam Vs State of U.P.

Vishnu Vs State of U.P.

Ritik Vs State of U.P.

Dileep Vs State of U.P.

Mohanlal Alias Makkhan Vs State of U.P.