In a bail application under IPC and POCSO sections, this single-judge court found it a fit case to release the applicant on bail subject to standard conditions, noting the victim's age controversy but declining to comment on merits.
Applicant released on bail via personal bond and two sureties subject to standard conditions.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 86
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 11564 of 2021
Applicant :- Mukesh Kumar Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Anil Kumar Bind Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Subhash Chand,J.
Heard learned counsel for applicant(s), learned A.G.A. and perused the record.
This bail application has been preferred by the accusedapplicant(s) Mukesh Kumar who is involved in Case Crime No. 440 of 2020 under Sections 363,366,376 I.P.C., and 3/4 of the Protection of Children From Sexual Offences Act, P.S.Fatehgarh District-Farrukhabad.
Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant has been falsely implicated in this case. The FIR of this case was lodged under sections 363 and 366 of IPC against three accused persons namely Mukesh, Shiva and Monu and during investigation sections 376 of IPC and 3/4 of the POCSO Act were enhanced.
Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that in fact the victim was major and was willingly accompanied to the applicant as both were having affairs and physical relations were established between them without pressure and with free consent. Both of them were got married in a temple. In this regard learned counsel for the applicant relied upon the statement of victim under sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C., in which the age of the victim has been stated to be 18 years. As per ossification report the age of the victim is mentioned about 17 years.
Learned AGA opposed the contentions made by learned counsel for the applicant.
In view of the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions made by learned counsel for both sides and going through the record, without commenting on the merits of the case, I find it a fit case for bail.
Let applicant(s) Mukesh Kumar be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on his furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:-
(i) The applicant(s) shall not indulge in any criminal activity.
(ii) The applicant(s) shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence.
(iii) The applicant(s) shall not pressurize the prosecution witnesses.
(iv) The applicant(s) shall regularly appear on the dates fixed by the trial court unless his personal attendance is exempted by the trial court.
In case of default of any of the conditions enumerated above, liberty is given to the trial court to cancel the bail of the applicant(s) without any reference to this Court.
Order Date :- 17.3.2021 SKS
3 issues framed by the court
Whether bail is a fit case for the accused involving offences under IPC and POCSO.
Whether the victim was a minor andの有に従業立場が誤解されていること.（Note: The issue phrasing seems off, let me correct based on the text.
Whether the applicant should be released on personal bond and sureties.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Mukesh Kumar
Subhash Chand
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
