Allowed

Mantosh Kumar v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC25 Jan 2021BAIL/4034/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge granted bail to the accused, Mantosh Kumar, in a bail application under Sections 366, 376 IPC. The case pertained to allegations of enticement and abduction. The court held on prima facie that bail was made out and released the applicant on personal bond and sureties with standard conditions.

What did the court decide?

Prayer for bail granted; applicant released on personal bond and two local sureties.

Mantosh Kumar Vs State of U.P. — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 90

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 4034 of 2021

¶3

Applicant :- Mantosh Kumar Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Navin Kumar Pandey,Sudhanshu Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A., Manish Kumar Dwivedi

¶4

Hon'ble Ajit Singh,J.

¶5

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

¶6

The present bail application has been filed by the applicant in Case Crime No. 464 of 2020 under Sections 366, 376 IPC, Police Station Sarai Aakil, District - Kaushambi with the prayer to enlarge the applicant on bail.

¶7

The First Information Report of this incident was lodged by the complainant about the enticement of his daughter by accused Mantosh Kumar (applicant) and Bhullu and it was alleged in the First Information Report that the accused persons had given some intoxicating substance to his daughter and carried away her on their motorcycle on 11.09.2020. This incident was reported to the police on 2.10.2020.

¶8

The contention as raised at the Bar by learned counsel for the applicant is that applicant-accused has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is submitted that as per medical examination report the girl is about 18 to 19 years of age and she was in consensual relationship with the present accused and was major at the time of the alleged incident. The learned counsel has further submitted that the alleged girl had gone out with the present accused out of her own sweet will and they approached the police station Pashchim Sarira on 14.09.2020 and a request for getting them married was made to the police personnel because they were in love relations with one another and the Inspector of the alleged Police Station Mr. Pramesh Yadav after calling the family members of both the alleged victim and the present accused applicant handed over them to their family members. It is also submitted that the alleged victim being in consensual relationship with the present accused, did not raise any alarm about her forceful abduction. It is also submitted that later on, this false report was lodged. Lastly, it is argued that the applicant is in jail since 10.10.2020 and that in case applicant is enlarged on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶9

Mr. Lav Kush Kumar holding brief of Shri Manish Kumar Dwivedi appearing on behalf of the complainant as well as learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail.

¶10

Keeping in view the submission of learned counsel for the parties, period of detention of the applicant and all the attending facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, at this stage, prima facie, a case for bail has been made out.

¶11

The prayer for bail is granted. The application is allowed.

¶12

Let applicant Mantosh Kumar involved in the aforesaid crime be released

¶13

on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two local sureties to the satisfaction of court concerned subject to the following conditions:-

¶14

(1). The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence and the witnesses are present in Court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law;

¶15

(2). The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code;

¶16

(3). In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail and in order to secure his presence proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued and the applicant fails to appear before the Court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court may initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶17

(4). The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. If in the opinion of the trial court default of this condition is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of his bail and proceed against him in accordance with law.

¶18

The party shall file computer generated copy of such order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad, self attested by the learned counsel for the applicant alongwith a self attested identity proof of the said persons (preferably Aadhar Card) mentioning the mobile number (s) to which the said Aadhar Card is linked before the concerned Court/Authority/Official.

¶19

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.

¶20

Order Date :- 25.1.2021 LBY

Mantosh Kumar v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mantosh 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

Rajnish@ Tinku Vs State of U.P. and Another

Rajhans@ Dharmi@ Arun Gwalaa@ Deepak Sharma@ Rajan@ Dharmveer Vs State of U.P.

Aadil Vs State of Up

Jasvindar Singh Vs State of U.P.

Anshul Vs State of U.P.

Jubaier Vs State of U.P.