Allowed

Mukesh Kumar @ Betalal v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC20 Jul 2022BAIL/12137/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a bail application for an accused charged under IPC Sections 363, 366, 376 and POCSO. The court found merit in submissions regarding false implicaton, inconsistency in prosecution statements, and lack of medical evidence, granting bail with conditions.

What did the court decide?

Release on bail with personal bond and two sureties on conditions including no tampering with evidence and appearance in trial court.

Mukesh Kumar @ Betalal Vs State of U.P. and… — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 70

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 12137 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Mukesh Kumar @ Betalal Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Siya Ram Verma,Priti Verma Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Ajay Bhanot,J.

¶5

By means of this bail application the applicant has prayed to be enlarged on bail in Case Crime No. 69 of 2021 at Police Station Satti, District Kanpur Dehat under Sections 363, 366, 376 IPC and Section 5/6 POCSO Act. The applicant is in jail since 06.10.2021.

¶6

The bail application of the applicant was rejected by learned Additional District & Sessions Judge/Special Judge (POCSO Act), Kanpur Dehat, on 24.01.2022.

¶7

Sri Siya Ram Verma, learned counsel for the applicant contend that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the instant case. The age of the victim is incorrectly depicted as 17 years in the FIR as well as in the statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. No medical examination to determine the correct age as per duly established medical protocol was got done by expert doctors from a reputed institute as the same would discredit the prosecution case.The applicant and the victim were intimate. Their consensual relationship was opposed by the family members of the victim. The FIR is a result of such opposition and the criminal prosecution is intended to create a breach in their relationship. The victim in her statement under Section

¶8

161 Cr.P.C. has admitted to intimacy with the applicant. She has further asserted that she eloped with the applicant of her own volition. They stayed together at Faridabad. Lastly she has categorically asserted that she wants to stay with the applicant. However subsequently false and aggravated allegations of rape were made against the applicant in the her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. at the behest of her parents only to divert attention from her conduct and save the failing prosecution case. Material contradictions in the FIR and statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and Section 164 Cr.P.C. discredit the prosecution case. No medical evidence to support any allegation of rape or forceful assault has been produced by the prosecution. Learned counsel for the applicant contends that the applicant does not have any criminal history apart from the instant case.

¶9

Learned AGA for the State could not satisfactorily dispute the aforesaid submissions.

¶10

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

¶11

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

¶12

Let the applicant- Mukesh Kumar @ Betalal be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on

¶13

furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court below. The following conditions be imposed in the interest of justice:-

¶14

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

¶15

(ii) The applicant will not influence any witness.

¶16

(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 any averment made in the bail application or the submissions during the course of argument are found to be false or in case of breach of any of the above condition, the prosecution shall be at liberty to move bail cancellation application before this Court.

¶19

Order Date :- 20.7.2022 Pravin

¶20

Digitally signed by PRAVIN VERMA Date: 2022.07.21 10:41:30 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Mukesh Kumar @ Betalal v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mukesh Kumar @ Betalal 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Abdul Khalid Vs State of Up

Babbu @ Jitendra Sharma Vs State of U.P. and Another

Dhananjay Gupta Vs State of U.P.

Mukesh @ Rahul Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Rahul Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Rajaram Vs State of Up Thr. Prin. Sec. Home Govt of Up