Allowed

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

Allahabad HC1 Sept 2020BAIL/21301/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a bail application under Sections 363, 376 IPC, the High Court granted bail to the accused who was impliedly a minor victim's alleged partner. The court noted conflicting statements regarding consent and age but opined the applicant was entitled to bail during the trial.

What did the court decide?

The applicant was released on bail on executing a personal bond and furnishing two sureties subject to conditions of attendance, no tampering with witnesses, and no illegal activities.

Amit Kumar Vs State of U.P. and Another — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2020)

¶1

Court No. - 75

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 21301 of 2020

¶3

Applicant :- Amit Kumar Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Deepak Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Ajit Singh,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material on record.

¶6

By means of this application, the applicant who is involved in Case Crime No. 139 of 2020, under Sections 363, 376 I.P.C., P.S. Nahtaur, District- Bijnor and is in jail since 19.5.2020, is seeking enlargement on bail during the trial.

¶7

Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the FIR of the this incident was lodged by the complainant on 11.05.2020 regarding disappearance of her daughter against known persons. During investigation the victim was recovered. The victim in her statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. has stated that on 11.5.2020, she left her house and accompanied with accused-applicant Amit Kumar; they solemnized marriage at Arya Samaj Temple, Sadarpur, District Meerut. The copy of marriage certificate has been annexed as Annexure-5 to the affidavit. The applicant has made sexual intercourse with her own sweet will. She disclosed her age as16 years. It is further submitted that the victim in her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. has made totally contradictory statements. In the medical the Doctor has opined the age of the victim to be 19 years. Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that the applicant is quite innocent and he has been falsely implicated in the present case. The victim is a consenting party.

¶8

The physical relations were established with the consent of victim and no alarm has ever been raised by the victim. The applicant is languishing in jail since 19.05.2020.

¶9

The prayer for bail has been vehemently opposed by learned A.G.A.

¶10

Keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, severity of the punishment, submissions of learned counsel for the parties and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this Court is of the view that the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail during the pendency of the trial.

¶11

Let the applicant, Amit Kumar , be released on bail in the aforesaid case on his executing a personal bond and furnishing two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to the following conditions:-

¶12

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

¶13

He will not tamper with the witnesses.

¶14

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

¶15

It is further directed that the identity, status and residence proof of the sureties be verified by the authorities concerned before they are accepted.

¶16

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the trial court will be at liberty to cancel the bail.

¶17

The party shall file computer generated copy of such order

¶18

downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad, self attested by learned counsel for the applicant 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.

¶19

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.

¶20

Order Date :- 1.9.2020 Prajapati

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Amit Kumar 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Anand Vs State of U.P. and Another

Smt. Poonam Sharma Vs State of U.P. and Another

Vineet Gaud Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ravindra Nagar Vs State of U.P.

Deepak Kumar @ Sonu Vs State of U.P.

Manjeet Singh Vs State of U.P.