Allowed

Yogendra Kumar @ Kukku v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC17 Dec 2020BAIL/41538/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Hon'ble Rahul Chaturvedi, J. granted bail to Yogendra Kumar @ Kukku in a case under Sections 363, 376 IPC and POCSO. The court noted the victim's inconsistent statements but, considering extraordinary circumstances, released him on personal bond without sureties initially, to be followed later.

What did the court decide?

Release on bail on personal bond without sureties until normal court functioning is restored; sureties to be furnished within a month thereafter.

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

¶1

Court No. - 67

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 41538 of 2020

¶3

Applicant :- Yogendra Kumar @ Kukku Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Diwakar Tiwari Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Rahul Chaturvedi,J.

¶5

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

¶6

By means of this application, the applicant who is involved in Case Crime No. 11 of 2020, under Sections 363, 376 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of POCSO Act, Police Station- Sasni Gate, DistrictAligarh is seeking enlargement on bail during the trial. The applicant is in jail since 20.8.2020.

¶7

Contention raised by learned counsel for the applicant is that the F.I.R. was got registered by Santosh Sharma against unknown persons that her niece (the victim), student of class 12th, disappeared from the school on 13.1.2020 and her whereabouts are not known. As per the high school certificate, date of birth of the victim is 22.6.2002. On 18.1.2020 statement of the victim under Section 161 Cr.P.C. was recorded in which she has stated that on the fateful day she has left her home in seer anger qua her family members out of her own will and went to Mathura all alone. On the same day after recording statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. she was handed over to the first informant. Medical report of the victim clearly indicates that there is no sign of any sexual assault upon her. For the first time in the statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. recorded on 22.1.2020, the victim has attributed the role of sexual assault to the applicant. Thus, she has constantly changed her stand and at every stage she is floating a new story which would render grave injustice to the applicant.

¶8

Learned A.G.A opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the aforesaid facts.

¶9

Keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused and submissions of learned counsel for the parties as also that the Court is not in confidence about the stand of victim herself and the vision for false implication, without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, I am of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail.

¶10

Let the applicant- Yogendra Kumar @ Kukku , who is involved in Case Crime No. 11 of 2020, under Sections 363, 376 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of POCSO Act, Police Station- Sasni Gate, District- Aligarh, 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.

¶11

(i) THE APPLICANT SHALL FILE AN UNDERTAKING TO THE EFFECT THAT HE 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.

¶12

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

¶13

(iii) IN CASE, THE APPLICANT MISUSES THE LIBERTY OF BAIL DURING TRIAL AND IN ORDER TO SECURE HIS 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 HIM, IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW, UNDER SECTION 174-A I.P.C.

¶14

(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 HIM IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW.

¶15

(v) THE TRIAL COURT MAY MAKE ALL POSSIBLE EFFORTS/ENDEAVOUR AND TRY TO CONCLUDE

¶16

THE TRIAL WITHIN A PERIOD OF ONE YEAR AFTER THE RELEASE OF THE APPLICANT.

¶17

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

¶18

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 :- 17.12.2020 Vikas

Yogendra Kumar @ Kukku v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Yogendra Kumar @ Kukku 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

Shubham Vs State of U.P. and Another

Jitendra Kumar Singh Vs State of U.P.

Meraj Vs State of Up

Ram Kumar Vs State of U.P.

Ramsheesh Chauhan Vs State of U.P.

Fazal Khan Vs State of U.P.