Allowed

Rajesh Kumar v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC4 Feb 2020BAIL/4607/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This single judge court allowed bail for the accused, Rajesh Kumar, who was accused of kidnapping, abduction, and offences under the P.O.C.S.O. Act. The court considered victim statement, absence of criminal history, and parity with co-accused already on bail.

What did the court decide?

Applicant Rajesh Kumar released on bail subject to personal bond and two sureties with conditions against tampering with witnesses and evidence.

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

¶1

Court No. - 71

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 4607 of 2020

¶3

Applicant :- Rajesh Kumar Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Praneet Kumar Srivastava,Utkarsh Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A

¶4

Hon'ble Rajendra Kumar-IV,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for State and perused the material available on record.

¶6

Accused-applicant, involved in Case Crime No.58 of 2019, under Sections 363, 366, 368, 406, 120-B I.P.C. and Section 17/18 P.O.C.S.O. Act, Police Station Mungra Badshahpur, District Jaunpur, applied for bail.

¶7

Learned Counsel for the applicant submitted that applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case by the Informant. He has committed no offence. Entire prosecution story is false and fake. Applicant is father of the main accused Aniket Harsh who has already been granted bail. As per statement of victim under Section 164 Cr.P.C., she is aged about 17 years and she stated that she was in love with Aniket Harsh for last three years and on 25.02.2019 she went with Aniket Harsh thereafter accused alongwith other family members got her marriage forcibly. Victim is consenting party and she is major at the time of incident and she was capable of understanding what was happening with her. Applicant is in jail since 21.12.2019 having no criminal history. It is further submitted that there is no possibility of the applicant's fleeing away from the judicial process or tampering with the witnesses. In case the applicant is enlarged on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail. Due to heavy pendency of cases in the Court, there is no possibility of early conclusion of the trial. Lastly it has been submitted that case of present applicant is better to that case of co-accused persons, namely, Krishna Chandra, Sharda Devi and Aniket Harsh, who have already been granted bail on 10.07.2019, 22.10.2019 and 20.11.2019 by a coordinate Bench of this Court in Criminal Misc. Bail

¶8

Application Nos.27434 of 2019, 43950 of 2019 and 50858 of 2019 respectively, therefore, the applicant be released on bail on the ground of parity also.

¶9

Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail but did not disputed the factual submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant.

¶10

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, rival contention of learned counsel for the parties, detention of applicant in jail, severity of punishment in case of conviction, statement of victim under Section 164 Cr.P.C., allegation made against the applicant, role of the accused in present crime, keeping in view of bail granted to the co-accused persons and without commenting upon the merit of the case, applicant deserves bail.

¶11

Accordingly, bail application is allowed.

¶12

Let applicant Rajesh Kumar be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime on his furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to the following conditions:-

¶13

The applicant shall not tamper with the evidence or threaten the witnesses.

¶14

The applicant shall co-operate with the trial and shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for charge, evidence when the witnesses are present in the court, statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and argument.

¶15

During trial, he shall not indulge in any criminal activities or case.

¶16

In breach of any condition enumerated above, Trial Court shall be at liberty to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law.

¶17

Order Date :- 4.2.2020 I.A.Siddiqui

Rajesh Kumar v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajesh 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

Lakhan Singh Vs State of U.P.

Bhupendra Vs State of U.P.

Sumit Vishwakarma @ Rikki Vs State of U.P.

Paramveer Yadav Vs State of U.P.

Aslam and Another Vs State of U.P.

Nizamuddin Vs State of U.P.