Allowed

Sanjeev Kumar v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC18 Dec 2018BAIL/48607/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Court grants bail to the applicant, Sanjeev Kumar, in a case involving offences under IPC Sections 376, 377, 420, 406 and 506, after hearing both sides and considering the relationship dynamics and nature of allegations.

What did the court decide?

Release on bail on executing personal bond and furnishing two sureties each with conditions regarding tampering with evidence and appearing in trial.

Sanjeev Kumar Vs State of U.P. — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 53

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 48607 of 2018

¶3

Applicant :- Sanjeev Kumar Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Avnish Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble J.J. Munir,J.

¶5

Supplementary affidavit filed today is taken on record.

¶6

This is an application for bail on behalf of the applicant Sanjeev Kumar, in Case Crime No.483 of 2018, under Sections 376, 377, 420, 406, 506 IPC, Police Station, Link Road, District Ghaziabad.

¶7

Heard Sri Avnish Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri R.P.Singh Chandel, learned counsel appearing for the complainant, Sri Akhilesh Kumar Mishra, learned AGA along with Sri Avanish Shukla, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State.

¶8

The submission of the learned counsel for the applicant is that the parties, as would appear from the statement of the prosecutrix recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., were into a relationship after they became friends through Facebook in the year 2017. It is also said there that the applicant deceived her by telling her that he is a High Court Advocate, but acknowledged the fact that the two dated for a long time. It is also said that during this time, the applicant took money from the prosecutrix in different sums, totalling a figure of eight lacs, over the period of time that the relationship lasted. It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant, that it is the aforesaid outstanding dues that were taken as a loan by the applicant that shows not only the relationship but has become the cause for the present

¶9

false implication, which is otherwise a consensual relationship and nothing more. It is further submitted that the relationship is rather an unconventional one by the old standards, as the prosecutrix is a transgender, a fact that is not disputed by the learned counsel appearing for the complainant.

¶10

Learned counsel for the complainant and the learned AGA have opposed the prayer for bail.

¶11

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 admittedly the parties were into a relationship for a period of three years, which appears to have been soured, amongst them, on account of the financial transaction and the inherent limitation of relationship with the prosecutrix being a transgender, 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 Sanjeev Kumar, in Case Crime No.483 of 2018, under Sections 376, 377, 420, 406, 506 IPC, Police Station, Link Road, District Ghaziabad 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 :- 18.12.2018 NSC

Sanjeev Kumar v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sanjeev 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

Farid Vs State of U.P.

Vinod Vs State of U.P.

Aminuddin Vs State of U.P.

Dhanush Pal Vs State of U.P.

Firoz Khan Vs State of U.P.

Vipin Kumar Agrawal Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others