Allowed

Kanhaiya v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC22 Dec 2021BAIL/17267/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Allowed a bail application moved by Kanhaiya in a Crime No. 455 of 2020 involving offences under Sections 363, 376(3) IPC and Section 4(2) of the POCSO Act. The court held that despite the severity of penalties, a case for bail was made out without commenting on the merits.

What did the court decide?

Release on personal bond with two reliable sureties subject to conditions including no tampering with evidence, no criminal activity, no intimidation of witnesses, and regular appearance in court.

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

¶1

Court No. - 75

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 17267 of 2021

¶3

Applicant :- Kanhaiya Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Deepak Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Akhilesh Kumar Mishra

¶4

Hon'ble Ram Krishna Gautam,J.

¶5

Heard over bail application moved by applicant, Kanhaiya, in Case Crime No. 455 of 2020, under Sections- 363, 376(3) I.P.C. & 4(2) of POCSO Act, P.S. Dhampur, District- Bijnor.

¶6

Learned counsel for the applicant argued that the accusedapplicant is innocent; he has been falsely implicated in this very case crime number and is languishing in jail since 3.11.2020; he is of no criminal antecedent and there is no likelihood of fleeing from course of justice or tempering with evidence in case of release on bail; he was not named in the first information report, subsequently, in the statement of prosecutrix his name had surfaced but no incriminating evidence is there against the applicant in her statements recorded under Sections 161 as well as 164 of Cr.P.C., rather, consensual fleeing, thenafter, marriage and living is there. Hence, bail has been prayed for.

¶7

Learned AGA as well as learned counsel for the informant has vehemently opposed with this contention that on the basis of school record, prosecutrix is minor.

¶8

Having heard learned counsels for both sides and gone through materials placed on record, it is apparent that nothing incriminating is there in the statement of prosecutrix recorded under Sections 161 as well as 164 of Cr.P.C.

¶9

Considering all above facts and circumstances, the nature of accusations, severity of the punishment in the case of conviction and nature of supporting evidence, reasonable apprehension of tampering with the witness and prima facie case, but, without commenting on merits of the case, a case for bail is made out.

¶10

Accordingly, the bail application is allowed.

¶11

Let the applicant, Kanhaiya , involved in above mentioned case crime number be released on bail, on his executing a personal bond and two reliable sureties, each, in the like amount, to the

¶12

satisfaction of the court concerned, subject to the following conditions:

¶13

The applicant will not tamper with the evidence.

¶14

The applicant will not indulge in any criminal activity.

¶15

The applicant will not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witnesses and co-operate in the trial.

¶16

The applicant will appear regularly on each and every date fixed by the trial court, unless his personal appearance is exempted through counsel by the court concerned.

¶17

In the event of breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the court below will be at liberty to proceed to cancel his bail.

¶18

Order Date :- 22.12.2021 Kamarjahan

Kanhaiya v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kanhaiya 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Manju @ Amit Vs State of U.P.

Upendra @ Uppa Vs State of U.P.

Arvind Vs State of U.P. and Another

Shailesh Yadav @ Nokhai Yadav Vs State of U.P. and Another

Vijay Vs State of U.P. and Another

Pushpendra Vs State of U.P.