Allowed

Roop Kishor v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC5 Dec 2018BAIL/46027/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a bail application regarding charges of kidnapping and sexual offences made with a co-accused, the court granted bail noting the absence of specific rape allegations against the applicant, emphasizing his fitness for bail without commenting on merits.

What did the court decide?

Bail granted on executing personal bond and furnishing two sureties, subject to conditions prohibiting tampering with evidence and threatening witnesses.

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

¶1

Court No. - 53

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 46027 of 2018

¶3

Applicant :- Roop Kishor Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Pankaj Sharma,Prashant Sharma 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 Roop Kishor, in C.N.R. No.UPHT01-005189-2018 in Case Crime No.337 of 2018, under Sections 363, 366, 376, 120B IPC, and Section 3/4 POCSO Act, Police Station, Sasni, District Hathras.

¶6

Heard Sri Pankaj Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri J.B. Singh, learned AGA appearing on behalf of the State.

¶7

The submission of the learned counsel for the applicant is that the prosecutrix has been opined to be aged about 16 years by the Chief Medical Officer, Hathras through his certificate dated 28.5.2018 based on a medico legal estimation of her age. It is submitted that giving the usual allowance of two years, or even one, to the benefit of the accused, the prosecutrix would reckon to be a major. It is submitted that in the statement of the prosecutrix under Section 164 Cr.P.C. and elsewhere, the allegation of taking away the prosecutrix is there against the applicant along with co-accused Akash, but the prosecutrix has been specific in her statement throughout, particularly, under Section 164 Cr.P.C., that she was ravished by co-accused Akash and that the applicant Roop Kishor did not violate her. It is pointed out that in the ongoing trial also, the allegation of rape in the dock evidence of the prosecutrix is confined to coaccused Akash, but it is not there against the applicant. It is submitted that it has also figured in the testimony of the

¶8

prosecutrix during her cross-examination in S.T. No.8 of 2018 on 5.1.2018, that there is animosity between the prosecutrix's father, the applicant Roop Kishor and Akash, co-accused (nonapplicant). It is submitted that looking to the background of animosity between the applicant, the father of the prosecutrix and the fact that there is no allegation of rape against the applicant, he is entitled to the indulgence of bail.

¶9

Learned AGA has opposed the prayer for bail but does not dispute the fact that there is no allegation of rape against the applicant, though an allegation of kidnapping/abduction is there.

¶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 there is no allegation of rape against the applicant that is specifically confined to co-accused Akash, but without expressing any opinion on merits, this Court finds it to be a fit case for bail. It is made clear that the benefit of this order will not be available to co-accused Akash.

¶11

The bail application, accordingly, stands allowed.

¶12

Let the applicant Roop Kishor , in C.N.R. No.UPHT01005189-2018 in Case Crime No.337 of 2018, under Sections 363, 366, 376, 120B IPC, and Section 3/4 POCSO Act, Police Station, Sasni, District Hathras 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

¶15

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 :- 5.12.2018 NSC

Roop Kishor v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Roop Kishor 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

Manoj Vs State of U.P.

Rinku Kashyap Vs State of U.P.

Rahul Vs State of U.P.

Manoj Nishad Vs State of U.P.

Kuldeep Singh Vs State of U.P.

Shivam Gupta Vs State of U.P.