Allowed

Shailesh Kumar v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC8 Dec 2021BAIL/15982/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application filed for release of Shailesh Kumar prosecuted under IPC and POCSO. Court notes applicant's lack of criminal history, cooperation in investigation, and absence of evidence warranting fear of tampering. Bail granted subject to personal bond and two sureties with specific conditions.

What did the court decide?

Release of the applicant on bail subject to personal bond and two sureties each, with conditions of non-tampering with witnesses and sincere cooperation in trial.

Shailesh Kumar Vs State of U.P. and Another — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 64

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 15982 of 2021

¶3

Applicant :- Shailesh Kumar Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Rakesh Kumar Yadav,Gajendra Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.

¶5

Although notice has been served, none has appeared on behalf of the opposite party No.2.

¶6

Heard, learned counsel for the applicant; Sri Ankit Srivastava, learned AGA for the State and perused the material placed on record.

¶7

The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant - Shailesh Kumar with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No. - 177 of 2020, under Sections - 363, 376D I.P.C. and Section 5/6 POCSO Act, Police Station - Bheempura, District - Ballia, during pendency of trial.

¶8

Having heard learned counsel for the parties, at present:

¶9

(i) against FIR lodged on 26.12.2020, the applicant is in confinement since 09.2.2021.

¶10

(ii) the applicant claims to have cooperated in the investigation. In any case he is not shown to have unduly evaded arrest.

¶11

(iii) the applicant has no criminal history.

¶12

(iv) chargesheet has already been submitted yet trial has not commenced. Therefore, there is no hope of early conclusion of the trial.

¶13

(v) on prima facie basis, only for purpose of grant of bail, it has been submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that First Information Report was lodged against unknown persons with respect to Nazia and Anju having gone missing; they were recovered three days after the occurrence; referring to the statements recorded under Section 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. it has been submitted that the same are incomplete and inconsistent as to the allegation of rape; just vague and bald allegation has been made.

¶14

(vi) in any case, no reasonable apprehension has been brought to the fore by the State that the applicant, if enlarged on bail would either tamper with the evidence or delay the trial.

¶15

In view of the above, without drawing any inference and keeping in mind that the applicant has remained confined for a substantive period of time, without expressing any opinion on the final merits of the case, let the applicant involved in the aforesaid crime 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, with the following conditions:-

¶16

(i) The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence by intimidating/pressuring the witness, during the investigation or trial.

¶17

(ii) The applicant shall cooperate in the trial sincerely without seeking any adjournment.

¶18

(iii) The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal activity or commission of any crime after being released on bail.

¶19

In case, of breach of any of the above conditions, the bail being granted shall be cancelled.

¶20

Identity, status and residence proof of the applicant and sureties be verified by the court concerned before the bonds are accepted.

¶21

Order Date :- 8.12.2021 Faraz

Shailesh Kumar v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shailesh Kumar v. State of U.P. and Another

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

Mansingh Vs State of U.P.

Farukh Vs State of U.P.

Chhotkali @ Khusbuddin Vs State of U.P.

Raj Kiran @ Neeraj Maurya Vs State of U.P.

Devendra Kumar Verma Vs State of U.P. and Another

Omkar Vs State of U.P.