Allowed

Deepu Kumar v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 3 Ohter

Allahabad HC22 Aug 2022/7692/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the bail application of Deepu Kumar in a case involving POCSO, IPC offences, and SC/ST Act. The court relied on settled principles regarding the nature of accusation and public interest to grant bail subject to specific conditions.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail furnishing personal bond and two reliable sureties in the like amount.

Deepu Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin… — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 15

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 7692 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Deepu Kumar Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And 3 Ohter Counsel for Applicant :- Aakash Srivastava,Alok Kumar Srivastava,Rinku Verma Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Pachori,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Alok Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Prem Prakash, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material on record. Despite service of notice upon first informant, no one has appeared on behalf of first informant.

¶6

The present bail application has been filed on behalf of applicant Deepu Kumar under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No. 059 of 2022 for offence punishable under Sections 363, 366 of the Indian Penal Code, and Section 7/8 Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act and Section 3(2)(v) of Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, registered at Police Station- Asoha District- Unnao during pendency of the trial, after rejecting the bail application of the applicant by Special Judge POCSO Act, Unnao.

¶7

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case due to ulterior motive. It is further submitted that as per statement of the victim recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C., victim has not supported the prosecution case and stated that she left her house on her own free and sweet will and she resides with her aunt. It is further submitted that ingredient of Sections 363, 366 I.P.C. is not made out against the applicant as per the judgment of Apex Court in S. Varadrajan Vs. State of Madras, AIR 1965 SC 942 as the victim herself left her house and went with the applicant.

¶8

It is next contended that there is no other criminal antecedent to his credit. It is next submitted that there is also no possibility of the applicant either fleeing away from the judicial process or tampering with the witnesses. The applicant, who is languishing in jail since 16.04.2022, undertakes that he will not misuse the

¶9

liberty, if granted. It has also been pointed out that in the wake of heavy pendency of cases in the Court, there is no likelihood of any early conclusion of trial.

¶10

Per contra , learned A.G.A. has supported the order passed by the court below and vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of bail to the applicant and submits that the allegations involved are very serious in nature and the delay in lodging the F.I.R. cannot be said to be fatal to the case at this juncture while considering the application of bail. But they would not point out any material to the contrary. He further submits that in case the applicant is released on bail, he will again indulge in similar activities and will misuse the liberty of bail.

¶11

It is a settled law that while granting bail, the court has to keep in mind the nature of accusation, the nature of the evidence in support thereof, the severity of the punishment which conviction will entail, the character of the accused, the circumstances which are peculiar to the accused, his role and involvement in the offence, his involvement in other cases and reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being tampered with.

¶12

Taking into account the totality of facts and keeping in mind, the ratio of the Apex Court's judgment in the case of State of Rajasthan v. Balchand @ Baliay (1977) 4 SCC 308, Gudikanti Narasimhulu And Ors., v. Public Prosecutor, High Court Of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 1978 SC 429, Ram Govind Upadhyay v. Sudarshan Singh & Ors., (2002) 3 SCC 598, Prasanta Kumar Sarkar v. Ashis Chatterjee & Anr., (2010) 14 SCC 496 and Mahipal v. Rajesh Kumar & Anr., (2020) 2 SCC 118 , the larger interest of the public/State and other circumstances, but without expressing any opinion on the merits, I am of the view that it is a fit case for grant of bail. Hence, the present bail application is allowed.

¶13

Let applicant, Deepu Kumar be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on her furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to the following conditions:

¶14

(i) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat, or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade her from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶15

(ii) The applicant shall not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witnesses.

¶16

(iii) 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 of Cr.P.C.

¶17

(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 the trial court.

¶18

(v) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel.

¶19

(vi) The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal activity or commission of any crime after being released on bail.

¶20

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail. If in the opinion of the trial court that 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 in accordance with law.

¶21

The trial court may make all possible efforts/endeavor and try to conclude the trial expeditiously in accordance with law after the release of the applicant, if there is no other legal impediment.

¶22

It is made clear that the observations made in this order are limited to the purpose of determination of this bail application and will in no way be construed as an expression on the merits of the case. The trial court shall be absolutely free to arrive at its independent conclusions on the basis of evidence led unaffected by anything said in this order.

¶23

The party shall file computer generated copy of such order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad, self attested by the applicant along-with a self attested identity proof of the said person (preferably Aadhar Card) mentioning the mobile number to which the said Aadhar Card is linked.

¶24

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.

¶25

Order Date :- 22.8.2022 Ishan

¶26

Digitally signed by ISHAN JAISWAL Date: 2022.08.25 18:50:39 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Deepu Kumar v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 3 Ohter

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Deepu Kumar v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 3 Ohter

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Wali Mohammed and Ors. Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Shiv Vishal and Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko and Another

Udai Bhan Singh Vs in the Court of Special Judge Sc/St (P.a.) Act/Ii A.D.J. Sultanpur and Others

Ram Bachan Ram Vs State of U.P. Thru. Superintedant of Police CBI ,Lko

Sanjay Kumar Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. SP CBI Scb Hazratganj Lucknow

Shailendra Yadav Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. /Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko.