Allowed

Pawan Kumar Sharma v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC3 May 2019BAIL/4295/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The single judge allowed a bail application for an accused charged with offences related to abduction and trafficking. The court noted the accused was brother-in-law of another accused and highlighted discrepancies in the prosecutrix's age and statements, leading to the grant of bail with standard conditions.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail on personal bond and two reliable sureties in the like amount subject to conditions against tampering, criminal activity, and intimidation of witnesses.

Pawan Kumar Sharma Vs State of U.P. — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 79

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 4295 of 2019

¶3

Applicant :- Pawan Kumar Sharma Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Surendra Nath Dubey,Ramesh Kumar Pandey,Sachin Dubey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Ram Krishna Gautam,J.

¶5

By means of this application the applicant Pawan Kumar Sharma has prayed to release him on bail in Case Crime No. 608 of 2017, u/s 363, 366, 368 I.P.C., P.S. Loni Border, District Ghaziabad.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned AGA representing the State. Perused the record.

¶7

Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the applicant is innocent. He, being brother-in-law of named accused Shubham Pandit, has been falsely implicated in this very case crime number, in which prosecutrix was said to be of 17 years, in First Information Report. Whereas under medical examination as well as order of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ghaziabad, she has been determined to be of 22 years of age in medical age determination. She, in her statement recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C., has categorically said to be of in company of Shubham Pandit and having married with him and living upon her own volition. Hence, accused applicant being of no criminal antecedents, has prayed for bail.

¶8

Learned AGA has vehemently opposed the bail application.

¶9

Statement of brother of prosecutrix, who himself was said to be abducted, recorded in case diary, reveals that Richa went with Shubham Pandit and this was not kidnapping by any person. Richa, in her statement recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C., has categorically said to be married with Shubham Pandit and had gone with him, upon her own volition. She was held to be of 22 years, in medical age determination test. Under all above facts and circumstances, the nature of accusations, severity of the punishment in the case of conviction and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this court is of the view that the applicant may be enlarged on bail with certain conditions.

¶10

Accordingly, the bail application is allowed.

¶11

Let the applicant, Pawan Kumar Sharma, involved in above mentioned case crime number be released on bail on his executing a personal bond and two reliable sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to the following conditions:

¶12

The applicant will not tamper with the evidence.

¶13

The applicant will not indulge in any criminal activity.

¶14

The applicant will not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witnesses and co-operate in the trial.

¶15

The applicant will appear regularly on each and every date fixed by the trial court unless his personal appearance is exempted through counsel by the court concerned.

¶16

In the event of breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the court below will be at liberty to proceed to cancel his bail.

¶17

Order Date :- 3.5.2019 Kamarjahan

Pawan Kumar Sharma v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pawan Kumar Sharma 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

Li Zikun Vs State of U.P.

Sadab @ Nizamudeen Vs State of U.P.

Keshari Vs State of U.P.

Raju Lal Vs State of U.P.

Kunwar Pal @ Mantu Vs State of U.P.

Uttam Singh Vs State of U.P.