Allowed

Kuldeep v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC20 Nov 2018BAIL/42990/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court granted bail to the applicant in a criminal case involving charges under Sections 363, 366, 376, 506 IPC and Section 4 POCSO Act. The Court found it a fit case for bail due to inconsistent prosecution statements and the prima facie status of the prosecutrix as a major, though merits were not expressed.

What did the court decide?

Released on bail by executing a personal bond and furnishing two sureties with conditions against tampering with evidence, threatening witnesses, and committing similar offences.

Kuldeep Vs State of U.P. — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 53

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 42990 of 2018

¶3

Applicant :- Kuldeep Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Mohammad Khalid Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble J.J. Munir,J.

¶5

This is an application for bail on behalf of applicantKuldeep, in Case Crime No. 450 of 2018, under Sections 363, 366, 376, 506, IPC and section 4 POCSO Act, Police Station Ghorpur, District Allahabad.

¶6

Heard Sri Mohammad Khalid, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Nitin Kesarwani, learned AGA along with Sri Ashutosh Diljan, appearing on behalf of the State.

¶7

The submission of the learned counsel for the applicant is that going by the medico legal estimation of age, the prosecutrix has been opined by the Chief Medical Officer, Allahabad and two other members of the Medical Board to be aged about 17 years vide their certificate dated 19.7.2018. It is submitted that giving the usual allowance for variation in age to the benefits of the applicant, the prosecutrix would reckon to be a major. It is submitted that the prosecutrix being a major, the provision of POCSO Act would not be attracted. Learned counsel for the applicant has invited the attention of the Court to the statement of the prosecutrix made soon after recovery, dated 10.7.2018, to the police, wherein she has stated to be in love with the applicant and was going for an outing with him on 9.7.2018; that the applicant had not taken her away by blandishment but she had gone of her free will. It is further said that the applicant has not done anything to violate her by force, in the statement before the doctor. The prosecutrix has stated facts that are inconsistent leading the doctor to record the following remark in the relevant column " girl is changing her stories several

¶8

times" . Lateron, the statement under section 164 Cr.P.C., that was recorded on 23.7.2019, thirteen days after her statement under section 161 Cr.P.C., the prosecutrix has implicated the applicant on a charge of rape. The submission of learned counsel for the applicant is that the prosecution case is based on inconsistent statements of the prosecutrix and, therefore, not entirely reliable; even the doctor has found the prosecutrix to be unreliable. It is further argued that the applicant is a respectable man, with no criminal history, who is in jail since 10.7.2018.

¶9

Learned AGA has opposed the prayer for bail.

¶10

Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, the gravity of the offence, the nature of allegation, the severity of punishment, the evidence appearing in the case, in particular, the fact that the prosecution case is not consistent and is based on vacillating statements of the prosecutrix, and, the fact that the prosecutrix is prima facie a major, going by the medico legal estimation, but without expressing any opinion on merits, this Court finds it to be a fit case for bail.

¶11

The bail application, accordingly, stands allowed .

¶12

Let the applicant, Kuldeep, in Case Crime No. 450 of 2018, under Sections 363, 366, 376, 506, IPC and section 4 Prevention of Children from Sexual Offence Act, 2012, Police Station Ghorpur, District Allahabad 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:

¶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

¶17

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 :- 20.11.2018

¶21

Puspendra

Kuldeep v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kuldeep 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

Kishan @ Bhabhuta Vs State of U.P.

Ganesh Vs State of U.P.

Sharvan Kumar Alias Sarvan Kumar Vs State of U.P.

Sunil Mishra Vs State of U.P.

Deepu @ Anuj Kumar Vs State of U.P.

Nawab Ali Vs State of U.P.