Allowed

Umesh Kumar v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC28 Nov 2018BAIL/45356/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a bail application under Sections 363, 366A, 376(1) IPC and POCSO Act, this court granted bail. Relying on a medical certificate with a two-year variance favoring the accused suggesting the victim was a major, and noting her exculpatory statement, the court found it a fit case for bail.

What did the court decide?

Release on bail on executing personal bond with two sureties subject to conditions against tampering, threatening witnesses, and committing similar offenses.

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

¶1

Court No. - 53

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 45356 of 2018

¶3

Applicant :- Umesh Kumar Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Pradeep Kumar 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 Umesh Kumar, in Case Crime No.26 of 2018, under Sections 363, 366A, 376(1) IPC, and Section 3/4 POCSO Act, Police Station Kishanpur, District Fatehpur.

¶6

Heard Sri Pradeep Kumar, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Indrajeet Singh Yadav, learned AGA 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 the prosecutrix's age made by the Chief Medical Officer, Fatehpur, on the basis of an ossification test, the prosecutrix has been opined to be aged about 16 years. Learned counsel for the applicant has taken the Court through the said certificate dated 9.3.2018. He submits that the aforesaid certification of age being one based on medical estimation, the usual variation of two years to the benefit of the accused, reckons the prosecutrix to be a major. Learned counsel for the applicant has further invited the attention of the Court to the statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C., where the prosecutrix has said that she has gone of her free will along with the applicant on 1.3.2018 to Delhi whom she knows since long. It is also said that the two have stayed together renting a room in Delhi and lived like man and wife. It is further said that the applicant and the prosecutrix have married according to their free will, whereafter the applicant

¶8

returned to his native village Shahpeerpur Lathi. It is said that lateron, she was arrested by the police and sent to Nari Niketan. She has also said that she went along with the applicant of her free will but would now wish to go with her parents.

¶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 evidence appearing in the case, the severity of punishment, and, in particular, the fact that going by the medico legal estimation of the age of the prosecutrix with the usual allowance of two years, prima facie appears to be a major and the fact that the statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C., is exculpatory, 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 Umesh Kumar, in Case Crime No.26 of 2018, under Sections 363, 366-A, 376(1) IPC, and Section 3/4 POCSO Act, Police Station Kishanpur, District Fatehpur 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 offence of which the applicant is accused, or suspected of the

¶17

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 :- 28.11.2018 NSC

Umesh Kumar v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Umesh 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

Maharaj Singh Vs State of U.P.

Barnali Baishya Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Nurain Vs State of U.P.

Intazar Vs State of U.P.

Rajesh Gautam Vs State of U.P.

Vishnu Vs State of U.P.