Allowed

Kudru @ Amarnath v. State of U.P. and 3 Ors.

Allahabad HC14 Feb 2022/10285/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court allowed a bail application by Kudru @ Amarnath charged under IPC and POCSO. The applicant highlighted contradictions in the prosecutrix's statements and lack of corroborative material, noting his no prior record and detention since November 2019.

What did the court decide?

The applicant to be released on bail with a personal bond and two sureties subject to standard conditions including appearance and non-tampering.

Kudru @ Amarnath Vs State of U.P. and 3 Ors. — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 13

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 10285 of 2021

¶3

Applicant :- Kudru @ Amarnath Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Ors. Counsel for Applicant :- Kalika Prasad Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State as well as perused the record.

¶6

The accused-applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No.0151 of 2019 under Section 363, 366, 376D, 506 Indian Penal Code and Section 3/4 POCSO Act., Police Station Lalganj, District Pratapgarh.

¶7

It is alleged in the First Information Report that daughter of the informant aged about 16 years while she went to ease out the accused persons enticed her away on a vehicle. On 30.3.2019 somehow her daughter came home and told her that these persons have raped her.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the prosecution story in the First Information Report has been falsified by the prosecutrix herself in the statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. where she has stated that she was enticed away by the accused persons and was taken on the motorcycle to Pratapgarh. From Pratapgarh the applicant returned and from Pratapgarh Sonu, the co-accused took her away and raped her. No allegation of rape has been leveled against the present applicant in the statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. However, while giving statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. the prosecutrix has leveled allegation of rape against the both the accused persons. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that radiological age of the prosecutrix is 19 years. The case of the applicant is

¶9

totally different from the co-accused Sonu. The statements of the prosecutrix given under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and 164 Cr.P.C. are contradictory and there is no corroborative material to support the prosecution story such as medical etc.

¶10

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has no criminal history. The applicant is in jail since 27.11.2019.

¶11

Learned A.G.A. has opposed the bail prayer of the applicant but could not dispute the fact that the statements of the prosecutrix under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and 164 Cr.P.C are different and there is no other corroborative material.

¶12

I have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties.

¶13

On due consideration to the facts that the applicant is in jail since 27.11.2019 without having any previous criminal history; charge-sheet has been filed in the matter and also considering the fact that statements of the prosecutrix under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and 164 Cr.P.C are contradictory, without expressing any opinion on merits of the case I find it to be a fit case for enlarging the applicant on bail.

¶14

Accordingly, the bail application is allowed. Let the applicant Kudru @ Amarnath be released on bail in aforesaid case crime number subject to his furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court below concerned with the following conditions:

¶15

(i) The applicant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.

¶16

(ii) The applicant will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness.

¶17

(iii) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the

¶18

facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶19

(iv) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates 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.

¶20

(v) 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.

¶21

(vi) 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. is issued and the 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 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶22

Order Date :- 14.2.2022

¶23

Madhu

¶24

Digitally signed by MADHU KUMARI Date: 2022.02.15 16:59:38 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Kudru @ Amarnath v. State of U.P. and 3 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kudru @ Amarnath v. State of U.P. and 3 Ors.

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

Nanhey Lal Vs State of U.P.

M/S Kashish Enterprises Thru Prop Hameed Ullah Khan Vs State of U.P Thru Addl Chief Secy and Another

Shailendra Kumar and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru Prin Secy Home Civil Secy and Another

Shiv Kumar @ Shivam Vs State of U.P. and 3 Ors.

Rajjan Ali Nat Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Deepu Singh Vs State of U.P. and Ors.