Allowed

Rajendra Kumar v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC18 Jan 2019BAIL/2392/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The single judge allowed the bail application of Rajendra Kumar. The court noted significant discrepancies, including a two-year delay in the FIR, no missing report filed, and inconsistent victim statements, deeming the prosecution case shaky. Bail was granted on the condition of personal bond and sureties.

What did the court decide?

Released on bail on execution of personal bond and furnishing two sureties each, subject to standard conditions.

Rajendra Kumar Vs State of U.P. — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 64

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 2392 of 2019

¶3

Applicant :- Rajendra Kumar Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Gulab Chandra Tiwari Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble J.J. Munir,J.

¶5

This is a bail application on behalf of the applicant Rajendra Kumar in connection with Case Crime No. 0053 of 2016 under Section 376-D, 342, 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC and Section 3/4 Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, P.S. Bahariya District Prayagraj.

¶6

Heard Sri Santosh Singh, Advocate holding brief of Sri Gulab Chandra Tiwari, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Akhilesh Kumar Mishra, learned AGA along with Ashutosh Diljan, learned counsel for the State.

¶7

The submission of learned counsel for the applicant is that the incident involving abduction of the prosecutrix and rape has been reported to the police after a delay of about two years. It is argued that the prosecutrix had gone missing after accompanying Mitta Devi W/o co-accused, Krishna Kumar and was not heard of since then. It is alleged that not even a missing report was lodged, though, it is said in the FIR that some efforts were made. The submission is that the present FIR lodged after two years with aid of Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. in the circumstances already indicated prima facie creates serious doubts to the prosecution case as it does not stand to reason how a missing report or a further report about abduction was not lodged during all these years. It is submitted that the applicant has been implicated falsely on account of a proverbial village rivalry. It is pointed out that the victim has been forced by parents to speak inculpatory against the applicant in order to vent her parents malice. It is also pointed out that in the statement of the prosecutrix under Section 161 Cr.P.C., there is no allegation of rape against the applicant though that allegation does figure in the statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. which makes the prosecution case stand on shaky grounds. It is submitted that the applicant is in jail since 14.12.2018. Learned

¶8

counsel for the applicant has further invited the attention of the Court to the fact that the co-accused, Krishna Kumar, who is main accused has been admitted to the concession of bail by this Court vide order dated 18.10.2016 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 34211 of 2016 and, as such the applicant is entitled to bail on ground of parity.

¶9

Learned AGA has opposed the prayer for bail but does not dispute the factum of parity.

¶10

Considering the overall facts and circumstances, the nature of allegations, the gravity of offence, the severity of the punishment, the evidence appearing against the accused, in particular, the fact that the FIR has been lodged with an unexplained delay of two years, the fact that not even a missing report has been lodged during a period of two years that the prosecutrix allegedly remained absent and in the control of the accused, the fact that in the statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C., there is no allegation of rape against the applicant but it is there under Section 164 Cr.P.C. which makes the prosecution case uncertain and shaky, the fact that co-accused Krishna Kumar, whose role is pivotal in the crime prima facie, has been granted bail, but without expressing any opinion on merits, this Court finds it to be a fit case for bail.

¶11

Accordingly, the bail application stands allowed.

¶12

Let the applicant Rajendra Kumar involved in Case Crime No. 0053 of 2016 under Section 376-D, 342, 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC and Section 3/4 Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, P.S. Bahariya District Prayagraj be released on bail on executing a 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 commission.

¶17

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.

¶18

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. It is clarified that anything said in this order is limited to the purpose of determination of this bail application and will in no way be construed as an expression on the merits of the case. It is further clarified that the trial court shall be absolutely free to arrive at its independent conclusions on the basis of evidence lead unaffected by anything said in this order.

¶19

Order Date :- 18.1.2019

¶20

Deepak

Rajendra Kumar v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajendra 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Manoj Singh Vs State of U.P.

Santram @ Baihana Chamar Vs State of U.P.

Muqeem Vs State of U.P.

Nand Kishor Vs State of U.P.

Rajesh Vs State of U.P.

Tejpal @ Tejram @ Teja Vs State of U.P.