Allowed

Pawan Kumar Sharma v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC15 Oct 2020BAIL/32459/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the bail application of the applicant accused under IPC Sections 376, 406, and 506. Relying on Supreme Court precedents, the court noted contradictions in victim statements and granted bail subject to standard conditions without expressing an opinion on the merits.

What did the court decide?

Released on bail by furnishing a personal bond and two local sureties each in the like amount, subject to specified conditions.

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

¶1

Court No. - 90

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 32459 of 2020

¶3

Applicant :- Pawan Kumar Sharma Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Rabindra Bahadur Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Rajesh Kumar Roy Sharma

¶4

Hon'ble Deepak Verma,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Sri R.K.Sharma, learned counsel for the informant and learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material on record.

¶6

The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant Pawan Kumar Sharma with a prayer to release him in Case Crime No.125 of 2020, under sections 376, 406 & 506 I.P.C., Police Station Tajganj, District Agra during pendency of the trial.

¶7

Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case due to dispute arose between the parties regarding business of Saree. He further submitted that the victim is neighbour of the applicant and had sexual relation for more than three years. He further submitted that in business she embezzled money, when applicant made pressure to refund that money, she made a false story and lodged FIR against the applicant. The victim in her statement recorded under section 164 Cr.P.C. has stated that the applicant is neighbour of victim and the applicant used to rape her and also have made video-clips. The incident is of the year 2017 but due to fear she could not stated about threatening of pouring acid on her body. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that from perusal of statements recorded under sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. it appears that both are consenting party. She reached to hotels on applicant's call where applicant sexually exploited her. Her statements recorded under sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. are not corroborated with the present FIR. There is no prospect of trial of the present case being concluded in near future due to heavy dockets. It is next submitted that there is no possibility of fleeing away of the applicant from the judicial custody or tampering with the witnesses and, in case, the applicant is enlarged on bail, the applicant shall not misuse the liberty of bail. It is also contended that the applicant is languishing in jail since 03.03.2020.

¶8

Per contra, learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for the informant oppose the bail prayer of the applicant. Learned counsel for the informant has stated that applicant had taken

¶9

photographs and made video-clips of the victim and also blackmailing the victim, hence, the applicant should not be granted bail.

¶10

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and the statement of the victim under Sections 161 Cr.P.C. and 164 Cr.P.C., medical report regarding age of the victim and evidence on record regarding complicity of the accused and the view laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Dataram Singh Vs. State of U.P. and another reported in (2018)3 SCC 22; Rajak Mohammad vs.The State of Himachal Pradesh in Criminal Appeal No.1395 of 2015 and Musauddin Ahmad vs. State of Assam reported in 2009 (14) SCC 541, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the applicant is entitled for bail. The bail application is allowed.

¶11

Let the applicant Pawan Kumar Sharma , who is involved in Case Crime No.125 of 2020, under Sections 376, 406 & 506 I.P.C, Police Station- Tajganj, District- Agra, be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two local 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

The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed. If in the opinion of the trial court absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law.

¶16

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

¶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

¶19

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 :- 15.10.2020/SKD

Pawan Kumar Sharma v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pawan Kumar Sharma 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Alok Kumar Vs State of U.P.

Nawal Vs State of U.P.

Sant Raj Vs State of U.P.

Haidar Vs State of U.P.

Nafees Ahmad Vs State of U.P.

Awadhesh Kumar Vs State of U.P.