Allowed

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

Allahabad HC19 Nov 2018BAIL/44022/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal bail application under Sections 376, 506 IPC, the single judge allowed the plea. The court noted that while the primary witness, a cousin of the accused aged about 20 years, denied the incident in court, detention deserves removal pending trial given the doubt cast on the prosecution case.

What did the court decide?

Released on bail on executing personal bond and furnishing two sureties subject to five standard conditions of bail.

Sharvan Kumar Alias Sarvan Kumar Vs State of U.P. — Cheating and Forgery | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 53

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 44022 of 2018

¶3

Applicant :- Sharvan Kumar Alias Sarvan Kumar Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Sandeep Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble J.J. Munir,J.

¶5

This is an application for bail on behalf of the applicant Sharvan Kumar Alias Sarvan Kumar, who is in jail since 20.02.2018, in Case Crime No.149 of 2018, under Sections 376, 506 IPC, Police Station Hashanpur, District J.P. Nagar (Amroha).

¶6

Heard Sri Sandeep Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Sudheer Kumar Pathak, learned AGA along with Sri Abhinav Tripathi, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State.

¶7

The submission of the learned counsel for the applicant is that he has been falsely implicated by the prosecutrix on account of some filial issues, as the applicant is a cousin to the prosecutrix. It is pointed out though the prosecutrix has stood by the prosecution case as made in the FIR in her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C., but in her dock evidence, she has not at all supported the same and said that no incident of the kind reported ever happened. She has stated that so far as her statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C., is concerned, she never made such a statement to the police. She has submitted that the statement before the Magistrate under Section 164 Cr.P.C., was recorded under pressure from her father and the police as said in her cross-

¶8

examination after she was declared hostile. The submission of learned counsel for the applicant is that going by the evidence of the prosecutrix, who does not at all support the prosecution case, it is not at all justifiable to keep the applicant in detention pending trial.

¶9

Learned AGA has opposed the prayer for bail and submits that the prosecution case is consistent during investigation including the statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C., but does not dispute the fact that the prosecutrix in the ongoing trial has not supported it. Learned AGA submits that the worth of the dock evidence is to be seen by the trial court and not this Court hearing the present bail plea.

¶10

Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, the gravity of the offence, the nature of allegations, the severity of punishment, and in particular, the fact that the prosecutrix is otherwise a major aged about 20 years as appears from the medico legal estimation of her age, the fact that she is related to the applicant where there appears to be some dispute in the family, the fact that she has categorically denied the prosecution case in her dock evidence, which leads to doubt about the prosecution, 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 Sharvan Kumar Alias Sarvan Kumar, who is in jail since 20.02.2018, in Case Crime No.149 of 2018, under Sections 376, 506 IPC, Police Station Hashanpur, District J.P. Nagar (Amroha) be released on bail on executing his personal bond and furnishing two

¶13

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 :- 19.11.2018 NSC

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sharvan Kumar Alias Sarvan Kumar 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

Shankar Vs State of U.P.

Sumit @ Satendra Vs State of U.P.

Mukesh Chandra Vs State of U.P.

Kishan @ Bhabhuta Vs State of U.P.

Ganesh Vs State of U.P.

Momin Vs State of U.P.