Allowed

Rinku Kashyap v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC4 Dec 2018BAIL/44727/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court allowed a bail application under Sections 363, 366-A, 376(2)(1) IPC and Sections 3/4 POCSO Act. The court relied on a medical report estimating the prosecutrix's age as 18 years and an exculpatory statement, without expressing an opinion on merits.

What did the court decide?

Released on bail upon executing personal bond and furnishing two sureties, subject to standard conditions against tampering and harassment.

Rinku Kashyap Vs State of U.P. — Cheque Dishonour | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 53

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 44727 of 2018

¶3

Applicant :- Rinku Kashyap Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Satish Kumar Tyagi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble J.J. Munir,J.

¶5

In compliance with the order dated 26.11.2018, the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Meerut has submitted a medical report regarding determination of age of the prosecutrix in a sealed cover. The sealed cover has been opened under orders of the Court. It is exhibited and placed on record.

¶6

This is an application for bail on behalf of the applicant, Rinku Kashyap in connection with Case Crime No. 191 of 2018, under Sections 363, 366-A, 376(2)(1) I.P.C. and Section 3/4 POCSO Act, P.S. Hastinapur, District Meerut.

¶7

Heard Sri Satish Kumar Tyagi, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Sri J.B. Singh, learned AGA, alongwith Sri Abhinav Tripathi appearing for the State.

¶8

The submission of the learned counsel for the applicant is that a perusal of the medico legal report dated 30.11.2018 submitted by a Board of Doctors including the Chief Medical Officer, Meerut, the prosecutrix, on the basis of an ossification test, has been opined to be aged about 18 years. He submits that the provisions of the POCSO Act are, therefore, not attracted in the present case. Learned counsel for the applicant has taken the Court through the statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. which categorically shows that the prosecutrix was fed up of her parents, who would abuse her in vulgar language. She has clearly indicated that she invited the applicant over to her place

¶9

on the pain of committing suicide and forced him to take her alongwith him. She accompanied the applicant to Gujarat by train, where they went to Palampur and married in a temple. It is said that they came to Allahabad to seek police protection but advised by counsel that their age was short of 18 years. Thereafter, the prosecutrix and the applicant stayed together at Palampur. However, upon receiving information that all members of the applicant's family were in jail, the applicant went back and was arrested by the police. The prosecutrix has indicated that she has married the applicant of her free will and does not wish him to go to jail. She stated that her father falsely reported the applicant to the police.

¶10

Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail.

¶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, that fact that the prosecutrix going by the medico legal estimation of age is aged about 18 years and the statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. is wholesomely exculpatory, 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 Rinku Kashyap involved in Case Crime No. 191 of 2018, under Sections 363, 366-A, 376(2)(1) I.P.C. and Section 3/4 POCSO Act, P.S. Hastinapur, District Meerut 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 :- 4.12.2018 BKM/-

Rinku Kashyap v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rinku Kashyap 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

Arvind Kumar Vs State of U.P.

Mukesh Vs State of U.P.

Kalicharan Vs State of U.P.

Manoj Vs State of U.P.

Rahul Vs State of U.P.

Shyam Lal Vs State of U.P.