Allowed

Nitin Kumar Ram v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC10 Dec 2020BAIL/23194/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge allowed bail to applicant in a POCSO case, relying on Article 21 and a Supreme Court dictum regarding masking of Sr. No. 23194 of 2020. Bail granted subject to personal bond and two sureties to be furnished once courts resume normal functioning.

What did the court decide?

Bail allowed subject to personal bond and two sureties to be verified and furnished after normal court functioning is restored.

Nitin Kumar Ram Vs State of U.P. — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Allahabad HC (2020)

¶1

Court No. - 78

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 23194 of 2020

¶3

Applicant :- Nitin Kumar Ram Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Kalp Dev Mishra,Pradeep Kumar,Upendra Kumar Pushkar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Ganesh Pandey,Ras Bihari Pandey

¶4

Hon'ble Rajiv Joshi,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Upendra Kumar Pushkar, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Ganesh Pandey, learned counsel for opposite party and learned A.G.A.

¶6

The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No. 204 of 2020 under Sections 363, 366 IPC, Section 7/8 of POCSO Act, Police Station Muhammadabad District- Ghazipur, during pendency of trial.

¶7

It is submitted by learned counsel for applicant that applicant is innocent and falsely implicated in this very case crime number. As per the FIR, the allegation against the applicant is that he enticed away the daughter of the informant namely, Neetu Kumari. In the statement of the victim recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C., she specifically stated that she has gone with the applicant on her own wish and wants to marry with the applicant. Medical report submitted by CMO concerned indicates that the age of the victim is 18 years. The said medical report is annexed as annexure no. 3 of the supplementary affidavit. The applicant is in jail since 14.6.2020, has no criminal history as stated in paragraph no. 18 of the affidavit filed in support of bail application and if he is released on bail, there is no chance of his absconding or misusing the liberty of bail or tampering with the prosecution witnesses.

¶8

Learned A.G.A. has opposed the bail prayer of the applicant but could not dispute the aforesaid fact.

¶9

Keeping in view the nature of the offence, argument advanced on behalf of the parties, spreading of novel corona virus in jails, evidence on record regarding complicity of the accused, larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India and the dictum of Apex Court in the case of Dataram Singh Vs. State of U.P. and another reported in (2018)3 SCC 22 and without

¶10

expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed.

¶11

Let the applicant, Nitin Kumar Ram, who is involved in aforesaid crime be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions. Further, before issuing the release order, the sureties be verified.

¶12

The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence by intimidating/ pressurizing the witnesses, during the investigation or trial.

¶13

The applicant shall cooperate in the trial sincerely without seeking any adjournment.

¶14

The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal activity or commission of any crime after being released on bail.

¶15

In case the applicant has been enlarged on short term bail as per the order of committee constituted under the orders of Hon'ble Supreme Court his bail shall be effective after the period of short term bail comes to an end.

¶16

The applicant shall be enlarged on bail on execution of personal bond without sureties till normal functioning of the courts is restored. The accused will furnish sureties to the satisfaction of the court below within a month after normal functioning of the courts are restored. In case court below is functioning normally, this condition will not apply and applicant shall be enlarged on bail on execution of bail bond and two sureties to the satisfaction of the court below.

¶17

The party shall file computer generated copy of such order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad.

¶18

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.

¶19

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

¶20

Order Date :- 10.12.2020 S.K.

Nitin Kumar Ram v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nitin Kumar Ram 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

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Pawan Dubey Vs State of U.P.

Ranjeet Vs State of U.P.

Sandeep Dubey Vs State of U.P.

Lalaram Vs State of U.P.

Sonu Vs State of U.P.

Somveer Vs State of U.P.