Allowed

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

Allahabad HC12 Jul 2022BAIL/12024/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal bail application under Sections 363, 366, 120B, 376 IPC and POCSO Act, the High Court allowed the petition. The court held the applicant entitled to bail based on the submissions regarding false implication and lack of prior criminal history without observing on merits of the case.

What did the court decide?

Applicant to be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties in like amount subject to standard conditions.

Dharmendra Kumar Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others — Cheque Dishonour | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 70

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 12024 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Dharmendra Kumar Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Narendra Deo Shukla,Vivek Shukla Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Ratnesh Kumar Jaiswal

¶4

Hon'ble Ajay Bhanot,J.

¶5

Shri Paritosh Kumar Malviya, learned A.G.A. for the State contends that the police authorities in compliance of the directions issued by this Court in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 46998 of 2020 (Junaid Vs State of U.P. and another) reported at 2021 (6) ADJ 511 and with a view to implement the provisions of POCSO Act, 2012 read with POCSO Rules, 2020, have served notice upon the victim as well as C.W.C. The C.W.C., districtMirzapur has sent its report to the learned Government Advocate.

¶6

By means of this bail application the applicant has prayed to be enlarged on bail in Case Crime No.04 of 2022 at Police Station-Jigina, District-Mirzapur under Sections 363, 366, 120B, 376 IPC and Section 3/4 of the POCSO Act. The applicant is in jail since 30.01.2022.

¶7

The bail application of the applicant was rejected by learned Special Judge (POCSO Act)/learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mirzapur on

¶8

21.02.2022.

¶9

Shri Vivek Shukla, learned counsel for the applicant contends that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the instant case. The age of the victim is falsely recorded as 14 years in the F.I.R. The victim is in fact a major. However, medical examination to determine the correct age as per duly established medical protocol was not got done by expert doctors from a reputed institute as the same would falsify the prosecution case. The applicant and the victim were intimate. Their consensual relationship was opposed by the family members of the victim. The F.I.R. is the result of the aforesaid opposition. The victim in her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. has admitted to intimacy with the applicant. She has further asserted that she got married with the applicant on 25.01.2022. One child was born in their wedlock. She has lastly asserted that she would like to stay in her marital home. No allegations of abduction, rape or forceful assault have been made by the victim against the applicant. Learned counsel for the applicant contends that the applicant does not have any criminal history apart from the instant case.

¶10

Shri Paritosh Kumar Malviya, learned A.G.A. could not satisfactorily dispute the aforesaid

¶11

submissions from the record. He, however, does not dispute the fact that the applicant does not have any criminal history apart from this case.

¶12

I see merit in the submissions of the learned counsel for the applicant and hold that the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail.

¶13

In the light of the preceding discussion and without making any observations on the merits of the case, the bail application is allowed.

¶14

Let the applicant-Dharmendra Kumar be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions.

¶15

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

¶16

(ii) The applicant will not influence any witness. (iii) The applicant will appear before the trial court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted.

¶17

(iv) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make 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 to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶18

In case of breach of any of the above condition, the prosecution shall be at liberty to move bail cancellation application before this Court. Order Date :- 12.7.2022 Ashish Tripathi

¶19

Digitally signed by ASHISH NAYAN TRIPATHI Date: 2022.07.13 10:14:02 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dharmendra 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rahul Gupta Vs State of Up.

Nitin Vs State of U.P.

Sonu @ Awdhesh Vs State of U.P.

Brijesh Kumar Vs State of U.P.

Satish@ Narayan Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Lakhram @ Lakhveer Vs State of U.P.