Allowed

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

Allahabad HC13 Jul 2021BAIL/44586/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal bail application under IPC 376 and POCSO, the High Court granted bail to an applicant accused of abducting a minor. The court noted the victim is now an adult, married to the applicant, and the original allegations were negated by her statements.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail on personal bond with two sureties (to be furnished later) subject to attendance conditions and prohibitions on adjournments.

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

¶1

Court No. - 67 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 44586 of 2020 Applicant :- Sandeep Kumar Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Anil Kumar Dubey,Ram Milan Dwivedi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Arun Kumar Mishra

¶2

Hon'ble Rahul Chaturvedi,J.

¶3

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned counsel for the complainant through virtual mode as well as learned A.G.A for the State and perused the record.

¶4

By means of this application, the applicant who is involved in case crime no.203 of 2019, under Section 363, 366, 376 IPC and Section 3/4 of POCSO Act, Police Station-Mau, DistrictChitrakoot is seeking enlargement on bail during the trial.

¶5

Submission made by learned counsel for the applicant is that the present FIR was got registered by one Rambali Pal against one Neeraj on 04.11.2019 for the incident said to have been taken place on 16.10.2019 with the allegation that minor daughter of the informant Miss X, aged about 15 years, was enticed away by the accused persons. There is specific allegation that Neeraj has taken away his minor daughter to some unknown destination. The girl was eventually recovered on 12.09.2020. The police has recovered the girl along with the small kid in her lap where she discloses her name and age. The recovery of the girl is at Annexure-2 to the application. It is next submitted that during investigation, the police has recorded the statement of the victim under section 161 Cr.P.C. where she narrated her story and has candidly submitted that she met with the applicant Sandeep and got married at Allahabad and thereafter reached to Delhi where they resided as husband and wife and the couple were blessed with a baby. She has negated the averments of the FIR. Not only this, she has declined to get her medical examination done internally. The 164 Cr.P.C. statement too is almost on the same line in which she states that applicant and the victim has got married and resided at Delhi. Both are residing as legally wedded couple and are blessed with a baby girl. She wants to go with her husband. The applicant is languishing in jail since 17.09.2020.

¶6

Learned A.G.A as well as learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 opposed the prayer for bail by making a mention that on the date of incident, she was minor girl but fact remains that now she is legally wedded wife of the applicant and mother of a small kid. The question was posed to learned counsel for the complainant whether his clients are interested in keeping her daughter back, but there was a candid denial on behalf of his

¶7

clients.

¶8

Taking into account the totality of circumstances, age of the girl as per ossification test, she is 18-20 years, her changed marital status and now she is mother of small kid and keeping in view the nature of the offence evidence, complicity of the accused and submissions of learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail.

¶9

Let the applicant, Sandeep Kumar , who is involved in the aforesaid case 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 subject to following conditions. Further, before issuing the release order, the sureties be verified.

¶10

(i) THE APPLICANT SHALL FILE AN UNDERTAKING TO THE EFFECT THAT HE SHALL NOT SEEK ANY ADJOURNMENT ON THE DATE FIXED FOR EVIDENCE WHEN 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.

¶11

(ii) 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 IPC.

¶12

(iii) IN CASE, THE APPLICANT MISUSES THE LIBERTY OF BAIL DURING TRIAL AND IN ORDER TO SECURE HIS PRESENCE PROCLAMATION UNDER SECTION 82 CR.P.C., MAY BE ISSUED AND IF APPLICANT FAILS TO APPEAR BEFORE THE COURT ON THE DATE FIXED IN SUCH PROCLAMATION, THEN, THE TRIAL COURT SHALL INITIATE PROCEEDINGS AGAINST HIM, IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW, UNDER SECTION 174-A IPC.

¶13

(iv) THE APPLICANT SHALL REMAIN PRESENT, IN PERSON, BEFORE THE TRIAL COURT ON DATES FIXED FOR (1) OPENING OF THE CASE, (2) FRAMING OF CHARGE AND (3) RECORDING OF STATEMENT UNDER SECTION 313 CR.P.C. IF IN THE OPINION OF THE TRIAL COURT ABSENCE OF THE APPLICANT IS DELIBERATE OR WITHOUT SUFFICIENT CAUSE, THEN IT SHALL BE OPEN FOR THE TRIAL COURT TO TREAT SUCH DEFAULT AS ABUSE OF LIBERTY OF BAIL AND PROCEED AGAINST HIM IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW.

¶14

(v) THE TRIAL COURT MAY MAKE ALL POSSIBLE EFFORTS/ENDEAVOUR AND TRY TO CONCLUDE THE TRIAL WITHIN A PERIOD OF ONE YEAR AFTER THE RELEASE OF THE APPLICANT.

¶15

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.

¶16

It is made clear that observations made in granting bail to the applicant shall not in any way affect the learned trial Judge in forming his independent opinion based on the testimony of the witnesses.

¶17

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.

¶18

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

¶19

The computer generated copy of such order shall be self attested by the counsel of the party concerned.

¶20

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.

¶21

Since the bail application has been decided under extra-ordinary circumstances, thus in the interest of justice following additional conditions are being imposed just to facilitate the applicant to be released on bail forthwith. Needless to mention that these additional conditions are imposed to cope with emergent condition-:

¶22

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.

¶23

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

¶24

The computer generated copy of such order shall be self attested by the counsel of the party concerned.

¶25

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.

¶26

Order Date :- 13.7.2021 Sumit S

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sandeep 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

Sanoj Vs State of U.P.

Ikram and 5 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Wasid Vs State of U.P.

Anuj Vs State of U.P.

Harendra Vs State of U.P.

Om Prakash Vs State of U.P.