Allowed

Kapil v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC1 Sept 2020BAIL/10078/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Hearing a bail application under Section 377 IPC and POCSO Act, the single judge granted bail to the applicant who claimed innocence and lack of credible evidence, imposing standard conditions and directing speedy trial.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail on personal bond and two local sureties with conditions to attend trial, not tamper with witnesses, and not indulge in illegal activities.

Kapil Vs State of U.P. and Another — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Allahabad HC (2020)

¶1

Court No. - 76

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 10078 of 2020

¶3

Applicant :- Kapil Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Awadhesh Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Vivek Kumar Singh,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Awadhesh Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Sanjay Singh, learned AGA-I, for the State and perused the material brought on record.

¶6

The submission of learned counsel for the applicant is that applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated due to ulterior motive. It is next submitted that there is no credential evidence against the applicant which may show involvement of the applicant in the present case. There is no independent reliable eye witness of the alleged incident. Several other submissions in order to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against the applicant have also been placed forth before the Court. Further submission is that applicant who is in jail since 20.9.2019, has no other criminal history and there is also no possibility of his either fleeing away from the judicial process or tampering with the witnesses. Applicant also undertakes that he will not misuse the liberty, if granted.

¶7

Considering the nature of accusation and the severity of punishment in case of conviction and the nature of supporting evidence, prima facie satisfaction of the Court in support of the charge, reformative theory of punishment, and large mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India, the dictum of Apex Court in the case of Dataram Singh v. State of U.P. and another, reported in (2018) 2 SCC 22 and without expressing any opinion on the merit of the case, I find it to be a case of bail.

¶8

Let applicant- Kapil, involved in Case Crime No. 494 of 2019, under section- 377 IPC, and Section- 3/4 of POCSO Act, Police Station - Partapur, District- Meerut, be released on bail, on his executing a personal bond and two local sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:-

¶9

The applicant will attend and co-operate the trial proceedings pending before the court concerned on the date fixed after release.

¶10

He will not tamper with the witnesses.

¶11

He will not indulge in any illegal activities during the bail period.

¶12

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.

¶13

The party shall file computer generated copy of such order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad. The concerned Court shall verify the authenticity of such computerized copy of the order from the official website of High Court, Allahabad.

¶14

The trial court is directed to expedite the trial of the present case and conclude the same as expeditiously as possible, keeping in view the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Alakh Alok Srivastava v. Union of India and others reported in AIR 2018 SC 2440, if there is no legal impediment.

¶15

Order Date :- 1.9.2020 ssm

Kapil v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kapil v. State of U.P. and Another

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

Akhlak Vs State of U.P.

Shahjad Vs State of U.P.

Phoolchandra Paswan Vs State of U.P.

Lalita Vs State of U.P. and Another

Neelu @ Ravi @ Beeru Vs State of U.P.

Rajesh Vs State of U.P. and Another