Allowed

Pankaj Kumar v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC3 Dec 2020BAIL/36289/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court granted bail to Pankaj Kumar, an applicant charged with offences under IPC Sections 363, 366, 376 and POCSO Sections 3/4. Relying on the victim's statement regarding their marriage and the applicant's age, the court allowed the application subject to specific conditions, including an initial release on a personal bond without sureties until normal court functioning is restored.

What did the court decide?

The applicant is released on bail on a personal bond without sureties (to be furnished within a month after courts resume normal functioning), subject to conditions regarding court appearances and pre

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

¶1

Court No. - 67

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 36289 of 2020

¶3

Applicant :- Pankaj Kumar Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Rahul Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Rahul Chaturvedi,J.

¶5

Pursuant to the earlier order of the Court, learned counsel for the applicant has filed supplementary affidavit annexing the statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and medical report of the victim.

¶6

Heard Sri Rahul Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned A.G.A for the State and perused the record.

¶7

By means of this application, the applicant who is involved in case crime no. 54 of 2019, under Section 363, 366, 376 IPC and Section read with Sections 3/4 of the POCSO Act, Police Station- Sahael, District- Auraiyya is seeking enlargement on bail during the trial.

¶8

Submission made by learned counsel for the applicant is that a belated FIR was got registered by the father of the victim on 15.05.2018 for the incident said to have been taken place on 06.05.2019 against the applicant and his sister Ruby. The girl was initially recovered. After the recovery of victim, the statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. was recorded, which has been annexed as annexure SA-1 to the supplementary affidavit, which has been filed pursuant to the order of this Court dated 23.11.2020 in which she clearly states that she is aged about 18 years and on her own free will she joined the company of the applicant and thereafter both of them came to Kanpur. Learned counsel for the applicant has drawn attention of the Court to the marriage certificate issued by Arya Samaj Mandir, Heera Ganj, Kanpur Nagar dated 13.05.2019 showing that both of them have tie at the nuptial knot, at the time of marriage she was aged about 19 years and she has declined to get her examined for any medical examination. The Statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. is annexed as annexure- 6 to the bail application in which she disclosed the fact that she has got married with Pankaj and remain in his company for 10 to 12 days. This was mentioned in the statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. that nobody has enticed her away and now she wants to join her parent as they are ready to marry with the applicant. As per the

¶9

high school certificate, which is annexed as annexure - 7 to the bail application her age is mentioned as 10.08.2001 and on the date of incident she is just three months short of attaining her majority. The applicant is languishing in jail since 17.09.2019.

¶10

Learned A.G.A opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the aforesaid facts and the legal submissions as argued by the learned counsel for the applicant.

¶11

Keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused and submissions of learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. Taking into account her age, her changed the marital status and the statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. let the applicant be released on bail.

¶12

Let the applicant, Pankaj Kumar, who is involved in case crime no. 54 of 2019, under Section 363, 366, 376 IPC and Section read with Sections 3/4 of the POCSO Act, Police Station- Sahael, District- Auraiyya, be released on bail on her 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.

¶13

(i) THE APPLICANT SHALL FILE AN UNDERTAKING TO THE EFFECT THAT SHE SHALL NOT SEEK ANY ADJOURNMENT ON THE DATE FIXED FOR EVIDENCE WHEN 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.

¶14

(ii) THE APPLICANT SHALL REMAIN PRESENT BEFORE THE TRIAL COURT ON EACH DATE FIXED, EITHER PERSONALLY OR THROUGH HER COUNSEL. IN CASE OF HER ABSENCE, WITHOUT SUFFICIENT CAUSE, THE TRIAL COURT MAY PROCEED AGAINST HER UNDER SECTION 229-A IPC.

¶15

(iii) IN CASE, THE APPLICANT MISUSES THE LIBERTY OF BAIL DURING TRIAL AND IN ORDER TO SECURE HER PRESENCE PROCLAMATION UNDER SECTION 82 CR.P.C., MAY BE ISSUED AND IF APPLICANT FAILS TO APPEAR BEFORE THE COURT ON THE DATE FIXED IN SUCH PROCLAMATION, THEN, THE TRIAL COURT SHALL INITIATE PROCEEDINGS AGAINST HER, IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW, UNDER SECTION 174-A IPC.

¶16

(iv) THE APPLICANT SHALL REMAIN PRESENT, IN PERSON, BEFORE THE TRIAL COURT ON DATES FIXED FOR (1) OPENING OF THE CASE, (2) FRAMING OF CHARGE AND (3) RECORDING OF STATEMENT UNDER SECTION 313 CR.P.C. 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 HER IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW.

¶17

(v) THE TRIAL COURT MAY MAKE ALL POSSIBLE EFFORTS/ENDEAVOUR AND TRY TO CONCLUDE THE TRIAL WITHIN A PERIOD OF ONE YEAR AFTER THE RELEASE OF THE APPLICANT.

¶18

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail. Since the bail application has been decided under extra-ordinary circumstances, thus in the interest of justice following additional conditions are being imposed just to facilitate the applicant to be released on bail forthwith. Needless to mention that these additional conditions are imposed to cope with emergent condition-:

¶19

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.

¶20

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

¶21

The computer generated copy of such order shall be self attested by the counsel of the party concerned.

¶22

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.

¶23

Order Date :- 3.12.2020 SK Srivastava

Pankaj Kumar v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pankaj Kumar 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

Reeta @ Sunita and Another Vs State of U.P.

Dasrath @ Bhaggulal Vs State of U.P.

Santosh Prasad Vs State of U.P.

Ashok Vs State of U.P.

Sarvendra Vs State of U.P.

Ajay Vs State of U.P.