Dismissed

Sushil Kumar v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC12 Sept 2019BAIL/35666/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Second bail application regarding charges under IPC 376-D/307/506 and POCSO Act. Court rejected bail due to gravity of offence but directed expeditious trial under Section 309 Cr.P.C., relying on Vinod Kumar v. State of Punjab.

What did the court decide?

Bail rejected; trial directed to be concluded expeditiously under Section 309 Cr.P.C.; coercive measures directed for witness attendance.

Sushil Kumar Vs State of U.P. — Child Custody and Guardianship | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 51

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 35666 of 2019

¶3

Applicant :- Sushil Kumar Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Manish Pandey,Vivek Shandilya(Senior Adv.) Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Vipin Sinha,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and Sri. V.K. Pandey learned A. G. A. for the State.

¶6

This is the second bail application. The applicant has moved the present bail application seeking bail in Case Crime No. 151 of 2017, under section 376-D/307/506 IPC & 5 (g) & 5 (m)/6 of POCSO Act, P.S. Kuthond, District Jalaun. The first bail application of the applicant was rejected by the another Bench of this court vide order dated 27.02.2019 passed in Crl. Misc. Bail Application No. 8606 of 2019. I have perused the said order passed by the another Bench of this court and finds that the said order is very elaborated and reasoned order.

¶7

Thus, the second bail application has come up before this Court after assignment.

¶8

I have perused the prosecution story as set up in the F.I.R. and also the bail rejection order.

¶9

The contention as raised at the bar by learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. He further submits the victim, who is an illiterate girl of 7 years has been produced before the Magistrate after 43 days of the incident for recording her statement under section 164 Cr.P.C. No subsequent development has been produced on record.

¶10

After hearing the learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A., perusing the averments as contained in the present bail application and looking to the seriousness of the allegation as made in the FIR, gravity of offence and the severity of punishment, no case for grant of any indulgence is made out.

¶11

Accordingly, the application for bail is rejected .

¶12

However, looking to the period of detention of the applicant, it

¶13

is directed that the aforesaid case crime number pending before the concerned court below be decided expeditiously, as early as possible in accordance with Section 309 Cr.P.C. and in view of principle as has been laid down in the recent judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Vinod Kumar v. State of Punjab reported in 2015 (3) SCC 220 , if there is no legal impediment.

¶14

It is made clear that in case the witnesses are not appearing, the concerned court is directed to initiate necessary coercive measure for ensuring their presence.

¶15

Let a copy of the order be certified to the court concerned for necessary compliance.

¶16

Order Date :- 12.9.2019 Vikram

Sushil Kumar v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sushil 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Amit Kumar Singh Vs State of U.P.

Nazim Vs State of Up

Arjun Singh Vs State of Up

Santosh Vs State of U.P.

Veeru Vs State of U.P.

Iqbal Vs State of U.P. and Another