Dismissed

Dr. Aadesh Kumar v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC3 Jun 2020BAIL/28995/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal bail application, the High Court considered the claim that the applicant has been falsely implicated in a non-bailable offence. Despite some weight given to the lack of ingredients for Section 377 IPC, the Court found credible evidence regarding the murder charge and the heinous nature of the case involving a minor, leading to a rejection of bail.

What did the court decide?

None; bail application rejected. Trial to be concluded expeditiously within one year.

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

¶1

In Chamber

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 28995 of 2019

¶3

Applicant :- Dr. Aadesh Kumar Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Om Prakash Rai,Ashok Kumar Mishra

¶4

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.

¶6

The matter has been heard through video conferencing.

¶7

Heard Sri Ashok Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Nagendra Kumar Srivastava, learned AGA for the State.

¶8

The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant - Dr. Aadesh Kumar with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No. 1138 of 2018, under Sections- 302, 377, 201 IPC and 3/4 POCSO Act, Police StationMuradnagar, District- Ghaziabad, during pendency of trial.

¶9

Having heard learned counsel for the parties, at present:

¶10

(i) against FIR lodged on 4.8.2018, the applicant is in confinement since 22.1.2019;

¶11

(ii) the applicant claims to have cooperated in the investigation;

¶12

(iii) the applicant has no criminal history;

¶13

(iv) charge-sheet has already been submitted yet there is no hope of early conclusion of the trial;

¶14

(v) on prima facie basis, only for purpose of grant of bail, it has been submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that the FIR was lodged on 4.8.2018 against unknown persons and that circumstantial evidence first arose almost a month after the incident in the shape of statements of two of the friends of the deceased. Referring to the FIR allegations as also the statements recorded during investigation and the further application moved by the informant, subsequent to the FIR being lodged, it has been submitted that there never existed any allegation of commission of offence under Section 377 IPC. There is no evidence, oral or medical, to support such allegation. Thus, it has been submitted, the applicant has been falsely implicated in

¶15

such a heinous offence for oblique notice. Keeping in mind the other facts and circumstances noted above, the applicant claims to be entitled to bail.

¶16

Opposing the bail application, learned AGA would submit that the statement of two child witnesses were recorded during investigation being those of one Chetan, aged about 12 years and another child witness aged about 9 years. Both have specifically named the present applicant and given detailed description of commission of the offence. Being child witness, they were traumatized by the incident and, therefore, they did not inform the others at the earliest.

¶17

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the record, though the submission advanced by learned counsel for the applicant with respect to lack of ingredient of the offence under Section 377 IPC may carry some weight and though no final opinion is being formed with respect to the same, yet insofar as the offence under Section 302 IPC is concerned, there appears credible evidence to proceed against the applicant in the shape of statement of two child witness. As the offence being heinous involving killing of minor child, there is no ground made out for grant of bail.

¶18

Accordingly, the bail application is rejected . However, immediately upon restoration of the normalcy of working of court, learned trial court shall make best efforts to conclude the trial, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of one year from the date of normal working of courts resuming, without allowing for any undue or long adjournment.

¶19

Order Date :- 3.6.2020 Prakhar

Dr. Aadesh Kumar v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr. Aadesh 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

Harikesh Sharma @ Sintu Sharma Vs State of U.P.

Mohammad Saif @ Shaif Vs State of U.P.

Nadeem @ Nadda Vs State of U.P.

Deepak Saini @ Chhotu @ Deepak Sauni Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ashish Rajak Vs State of U.P.

Deepak Rawat Vs State of Up