Allowed

Kamta Kushwaha v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC1 May 2019BAIL/4919/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal bail application allowed. Court grants bail to applicant alleging false implication in IPC 354-A and POCSO case, subject to conditions including no tampering or intimidation of witnesses and regular appearance.

What did the court decide?

Bail allowed on personal bond and two reliable sureties subject to conditions: no tampering with evidence, no criminal activity, no intimidation of witnesses, and regular appearance.

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

¶1

Court No. - 79

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 4919 of 2019

¶3

Applicant :- Kamta Kushwaha Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Dinesh Kumar Gupta Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Ram Krishna Gautam,J.

¶5

By means of this application the applicant Kamta Kushwaha has prayed to release him on bail in Case Crime No. 97 of 2018, u/s 354-A, 323 and 504 I.P.C. and Section 8 POCSO Act, P.S. Kharela, District Mahoba.

¶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 and he has been falsely implicated in this very case crime number because of an occurrence, which took place two days before regarding taking of water at handpump. It was a false implication. The accused-applicant is of no criminal antecedent. There is no likelihood of applicant's fleeing from course of justice or tempering with evidence in case he is released on bail. Hence bail has been prayed for during trial.

¶8

Learned AGA has vehemently opposed the bail application..

¶9

Perusal of F.I.R. reveals that it was got lodged on 6.10.2018 at 11.32 A.M. in respect of an occurrence said to have taken place on 5.10.2018 at 6.30 A.M. i.e. the report was quite delayed and there was accusation of outraging modesty and for biting on the finger of the mother of the victim because of protest made by her. The same is in the statements recorded u/s 161 and 164 Cr.P.C., whereas in the statement u/s 164 Cr.P.C. it has been categorically stated that there had occurred an occurrence two days before the present occurrence. 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, Kamta Kushwaha, 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

¶12

the following conditions:

¶13

The applicant will not tamper with the evidence.

¶14

The applicant will not indulge in any criminal activity.

¶15

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

¶16

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.

¶17

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

¶18

Order Date :- 1.5.2019

¶19

Pcl

Kamta Kushwaha v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kamta Kushwaha 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

Chand Jyoti Devi Vs State of U.P.

Abrar Vs State of U.P.

Chandan Pandey Vs State of U.P.

Anil Kumar Vs State of U.P.

Madhur Tiwari @ Golu Vs State of U.P.

Vijay Kumar Vs State of U.P.