Allowed

Pawan Kumar and Another v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC3 Nov 2020BAIL/16664/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court Allahabad allowed the second bail application in a case involving gang rape under Sections 363, 366, 376(D) IPC and POCSO. Although the victim's initial silence was noted, the court held that prima facie a case for bail was made out considering detention period.

What did the court decide?

Prayer for bail granted. Applicants Pawan Kumar and Tanu released on personal bond and two local sureties each subject to strict conditions regarding court appearance and no adjournment seeking.

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

¶1

Court No. - 76

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 16664 of 2018

¶3

Applicant :- Pawan Kumar And Another Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Yogesh Kumar Srivastava,Arvind Agrawal,Ravindra Kumar Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Ajit Singh,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the entire record.

¶6

The present bail application has been filed by the applicants in Case Crime No. 629 of 2017 under Sections 363, 366, 376 (D) IPC and Section 3/4 of POCSO Act, Police Station Uttar (Firozabad North), District - Firozabad with the prayer to enlarge the applicants on bail.

¶7

This is the second bail application on behalf of the applicants. Their first bail application was rejected by another Bench of this Court, vide order dated 08.11.2017, passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 42722 of 2017.

¶8

The First Information Report of this incident was lodged by the complainant against enticement of his daughter by accused Pawan Kumar, Ravi and Tanu on 27.04.2017 at about 5:00 P.M. when she was coming back after doing job in bangle manufacturing unit. It was further alleged in the First Information Report that the victim girl returned on 03.06.2017 and on 03.06.2017 she did not imputed any role to any accused person and on the next date the victim girl named three accused persons including the applicants. The girl supported the prosecution version in her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. and said that after kidnapping her, she was kept in confinement by the accused persons and accused persons committed gang rape on her.

¶9

The contention as raised at the Bar by learned counsel for the applicant is that applicants are

¶10

quite innocent and they have been falsely implicated in the present case. It is further submitted that the prosecutrix was major at the time of the occurrence and she had gone with the applicants on her sweet will. Further submission is that the victim girl has not supported the prosecution version during her statement in trial in respect to the present applicants and the statement of the victim girl has been annexed at page No. 7 of the supplementary affidavit. Lastly, it is submitted that the present applicants are languishing in jail since 11.07.2017. In case, they are enlarged on bail, they will not misuse the liberty of bail and they would cooperate with trial.

¶11

Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail. He has submitted that the prosecutrix was minor as per the medical report. But he has not disputed the fact that the victim girl has not supported the prosecution allegations against the present applicants.

¶12

Keeping in view the submission of learned counsel for the parties, period of detention of the applicants and all the attending facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, at this stage, prima facie, a case for bail has been made out.

¶13

The prayer for bail is granted. The application is allowed.

¶14

Let applicants, namely, Pawan Kumar and Tanu involved in the aforesaid crime be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two local sureties each to the satisfaction of court concerned subject to the following conditions:-

¶15

(1). The applicants shall file an undertaking to the effect that they shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence and the witnesses are present in Court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law;

¶16

(2). The applicants shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or

¶17

through his counsel. In case of their absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against them under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code;

¶18

(3). In case, the applicants misuse the liberty of bail and in order to secure their presence proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued and the applicants fail to appear before the Court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court may initiate proceedings against them, in accordance with law, under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶19

(4). The applicants shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. If in the opinion of the trial court default of this condition is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of their bail and proceed against them in accordance with law.

¶20

The party shall file computer generated copy of such order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad, self attested by the learned counsel for the applicants along with a self attested identity proof of the said persons (preferably Aadhar Card) mentioning the mobile number (s) to which the said Aadhar Card is linked before the concerned Court/Authority/Official.

¶21

The concerned Court/Authority/Official shall verify the authenticity of such computerized copy of the order from the official website of High Court Allahabad and shall make a declaration of such verification in writing.

¶22

Order Date :- 3.11.2020 LBY

Pawan Kumar and Another v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pawan Kumar and Another 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

Suman Vs State of U.P.

Naresh Pal Vs State of U.P.

Chhangur Vs State of U.P.

Manorav @ Saurabh Vs State of U.P.

Jitendra Singh Vs State of U.P.

Akram @ Guddu Vs State of U.P.