Allowed

Pradeep Kumar v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC15 Jun 2021BAIL/20423/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court granted bail to the accused-applicant in a case under Sections 366 and 376 IPC. The court noted allegations of delayed FIR, living relationship, and contradictions in evidence but decided without touching merits based on the nature of the offence and severity of punishment, subject to statutory conditions and the COVID-19 lockdown context.

What did the court decide?

Accused-applicant released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties (or personal bond alone due to lockdown), subject to strict conditions against tampering and committing further crimes

Pradeep Kumar Vs State of U.P. — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 65

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 20423 of 2021

¶3

Applicant :- Pradeep Kumar Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Vipin Kumar,Bratendra Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Umesh Kumar,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A and gone through the record.

¶6

This bail application has been moved on behalf of accused-applicantPradeep Kumar, who is involved in case crime no. 529 of 2020 under Section 366, 376 I.P.C., Police Station- Jaithara, District- Etah.

¶7

It has been submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is innocent and has falsely been implicated due to ulterior motive; that the incident is alleged to have taken place on 3.11.2020 and the FIR of the incident was lodged on 20.11.2020 after inordinate and unexplained delay of 17 days; that the victim Smt. Poonam herself left the home of her husband and resided with the applicant in living relationship and for this purpose on a notary stamp paper in between the victim and the applicant a deed in writing prepared at Tehsil Sahawar district Kasganj on 25.11.2020, copy of deed of living relationship is annexed at annexure-6 to the affidavit filed in support of the bail application; that the victim is a major girl and she has visited with the applicant at several places for more than one month and during stay she has not raised any alarm or made any complaint anywhere; that there is contradiction in the statement of the victim given under Section 161 and 164 Cr.P.C.; that the medical report also does not corroborates to the prosecution version. It is lastly contended that the accused applicant is languishing in jail since 21.01.2021 and in the wake of heavy pendency of cases in the Court, there is no likelihood of any early conclusion of trial and thus, the applicant is entitled for indulgence.

¶8

Learned A.G.A has opposed the prayer for bail and submits that signature of the victim on deed of living relationship has forcibly taken by the applicant; that the victim has specifically assigned role of forcible sexual assault upon her by the applicant in her statements under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. recorded during investigation.

¶9

Keeping in view the nature of offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, severity of punishment, submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and without touching the merits of the case, the accused applicant is entitled for bail.

¶10

Let the above mentioned applicant involved in 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 that :-

¶11

The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence, shall cooperate in the investigation or trial and will not indulge in any criminal

¶12

activity or commission of any crime after being released on bail.

¶13

In case of breach of any of the conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail. Identity, status and residence proof of the applicant and sureties be verified by the court concerned before the bonds are accepted.

¶14

However, if due to Covind-19 pandemic, the Sub-ordinate Court is under lockdown, the applicant shall be enlarged on bail on execution of personal bond without sureties till normal functioning of the courts is restored. The accused will furnish sureties to the satisfaction of the court below within a month after normal functioning of the courts are restored.

¶15

The party shall file computer generated copy of such order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad.

¶16

The concerned Court/Authority/Official shall verify the authenticity of such computerized copy of the order from the official website of High Court Allahabad and shall make a declaration of such verification in writing.

¶17

It is made clear that in the event the Sub-ordinate Court is functional as usual then the normal procedure/ mode of filing bail bonds and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Court concerned will be adopted.

¶18

Order Date :- 15.6.2021 Fhd.

¶19

Digitally signed by Justice Umesh Kumar Date: 2021.06.16 11:22:31 IST Reason: Document Owner Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Pradeep Kumar v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pradeep 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Deepak Alias Deepak Malik Vs State of U.P.

Babbu @ Vijay Bahadur Singh Vs State of U.P.

Smt. Poonam Vs State of U.P.

Masroor Ahmad Vs State of U.P.

Umesh Vs State of U.P.

Rakesh and Another Vs State of U.P.