Allowed

Raj Kumar v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC20 Dec 2021ABAIL/17926/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court allowed an anticipatory bail application filed by Raj Kumar for crimes of child abduction and wrongful confinement. Noting that the offences were bailable and the victim returned on the same day, the court granted bail subject to furnishing a surety bond and adhering to standard conditions.

What did the court decide?

Application allowed. Respondent released on anticipatory bail upon furnishing a bond of Rs. 50,000 with two sureties, subject to conditions of availability for interrogation and non-interference.

Raj Kumar Vs State of U.P. — Cheating and Forgery | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 87

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 17926 of 2021

¶3

Applicant :- Raj Kumar Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Yogesh Kumar,Prem Prakash Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Mrs. Sadhna Rani (Thakur),J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶6

This anticipatory bail application has been moved seeking bail in Crime No. 177 of 2021, under Sections 363, 342 IPC P.S. Tappal, District Aligarh, with the prayer that in the event of arrest, applicant may be released on bail.

¶7

It has been argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that the father of the victim got the first information report registered under section 363 Cr.P.C. that his minor daughter is missing and it is said that on the same day in the night the girl came back. In her statement under section 161 Cr.P.C. she has stated that she has left her home herself as her mother rebuked her. In her statement under section 164 Cr.P.C. she has stated that the present applicant has enticed her away but she mentioned therein that she returned back on the same day and nothing wrong was done with her. As per medical report she has been found 18 years of age. Apart from this there are charges of section 363 and 342 I.P.C. Both are bailable offence. Lower court vide its order dated 8.9.2021 has rejected the anticipatory bail application of the present accused.

¶8

Learned A.G.A. has opposed the application for anticipatory bail.

¶9

Considering the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and all attending facts and circumstances of the case, taking into consideration the gravity of the accusation as well as the fact that there being no possibility of fleeing from justice, without expressing any opinion on merit of the case, applicant is entitled to be released on anticipatory bail in this case.

¶10

The anticipatory bail application is allowed.

¶11

In the event of arrest of the applicant Raj Kumar involved in Crime No. 177 of 2021, under Sections 363, 342 IPC P.S.

¶12

Tappal, District Aligarh, he may be released on anticipatory bail on his furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Station House Officer of the police station concerned with the following conditions:-

¶13

(i) the applicant shall make him available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required;

¶14

(ii) the applicant shall not directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him/her/them from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer;

¶15

(iii) the applicant would co-operate during investigation and trial and would not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶16

In default of any of the conditions, the Investigating Officer/prosecution shall be at liberty to file appropriate application for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to the applicant.

¶17

Order Date :- 20.12.2021 Gss

Raj Kumar v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Raj 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

Devendra @ Devendra Singh and Another Vs State of Up and Another

Akash and 2 Other Vs State of U.P.

Kishan Kumar Yadav Vs State of U.P. and Another

Panchlal Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ashok Yadav@ Shekhar Vs State of U.P.

Yashpal Singh and 3 Others Vs State of U.P and Another