Allowed

Arvind Kumar v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC25 Nov 2022ABAIL/8449/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court granted anticipatory bail to the applicant under Section 438 Cr.P.C. in connection with offences under IPC and POCSO, subject to specific conditions regarding passport surrender, presence in court, and non-interference with witnesses.

What did the court decide?

Grant of anticipatory bail on personal bond with two sureties subject to conditions of not leaving India, surrendering passport, and remaining present for trial stages.

Arvind Kumar Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 72

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 8449 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Arvind Kumar Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Varun Dev Sharma Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Seema Pandey

¶4

Hon'ble Suresh Kumar Gupta,J.

¶5

Personal affidavit of the applicant filed today in Court is taken on record.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. appearing for the State, Ms. Seema Pandey, Advocate appearing for State Legal Service Authority and perused the record.

¶7

The present anticipatory bail application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. has been filed for grant of anticipatory bail as the accused-applicant is apprehending his arrest in connection with Case Crime No. 75 of 2022, under Sections 354-Kha and 323 IPC and Section 7/8 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, Police Station- Mauaima District Jaunpur.

¶8

It is contended on behalf of the applicant that he is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. Further submission is that false allegation of dragging the victim has been levelled against the applicant. The incident took place on 15.02.2022 and FIR of this case was lodged on 19.02.2022. There is no plausible explanation regarding the delay in lodging the FIR. It is further submitted that the victim herself voluntarily entered into the relationship with the applicant. Both of the them have solemnized marriage. In support of his submission notary of the marriage agreement has been filed. The applicant is ready to cooperation in the investigation as well as in the trial. Due to this FIR, the there is apprehension of arrest. If the applicant is granted anticipatory bail, he will never misuse the same. Learned counsel for the applicant has placed reliance on a judgement of the Supreme Court in the case of Sushila Aggarwal and others v. State (NCT of Delhi) and another, (2020) 5 SCC 1.

¶9

Learned A.G.A. vehemently opposed the prayer for bail.

¶10

It may be stated that in case of Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra, (2011) 1 SCC 694 , it has been held by Hon'ble Supreme Court that while deciding anticipatory bail, Court must consider nature and gravity of accusation, antecedent of accused, possibility of accused to flee from justice and that Court must evaluate entire available material against the accused carefully and that the exact role of the accused has also to be taken into consideration.

¶11

In the instant case, considering the settled principles of law regarding anticipatory bail, submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, nature of accusation, role of applicants and all attending facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion on merit of the case, a case for

¶12

anticipatory bail is made out.

¶13

In the event of arrest the applicant (Arvind Kumar) shall be released on anticipatory bail till conclusion of trial in the aforesaid case crime for the aforesaid offences on furnishing a personal bond with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court concerned with the following conditions:-

¶14

The applicant shall not leave India during the currency of trial without prior permission from the concerned trial Court.

¶15

The applicant shall surrenders his passport, if any, to the concerned trial Court. His passport will remain in custody of the concerned trial Court.

¶16

That 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 him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer;

¶17

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 to ensure presence of the applicant.

¶18

In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail, the Trial Court concerned may take appropriate action in accordance with law and judgment of Apex Court in the case of Sushila Aggarwal and others v. State (NCT of Delhi) and another, (2020) 5 SCC 1.

¶19

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 their bail and proceed against him in accordance with law.

¶20

The anticipatory bail application is allowed .

¶21

Order Date :- 25.11.2022 Virendra

¶22

Digitally signed by VIRENDRA KUMAR GUPTA Date: 2022.11.25 14:29:14 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Arvind Kumar v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Arvind Kumar v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

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

Said Ahmad Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Firoj Ahmad and Another Vs State of U.P.

Rizwan Khan and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Jagdish and Another Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Vipin Sharma Vs State of U.P.

Umesh Paswan Vs State of U.P.