The High Court allowed bail to Amit Kumar, implicated in offences under IPC 363, 366, 376 and POCSO Act, referencing overcrowding and victim's age discrepancies despite serious allegations of enticement and rape.
Release on bail with personal bond and two sureties, conditioned to not tamper with evidence and remain present for trial.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 69
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 13774 of 2022
Applicant :- Amit Kumar Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Ramesh Chandra Upadhyay,Deepak Kumar Kulshrestha
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Satya Narayan Yadav
Hon'ble Siddharth,J.
Notice has been served upon the opposite party no.2 but no one has put in appearance to oppose the bail application.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State.
There is allegation of enticement of minor girl with intent to marry and commission of offence of rape. Applicant has also been implicated under Section 3/4 POCSO Act.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the age of the victim as per report of the CMO is 16 years. Given margin of two years on higher side, she can be considered to be major. The victim has admitted eloping with the applicant and had gone to different places and stayed with him. She has travelled in public transport with the applicant and has not made any allegation of rape or abduction. Learned counsel for the applicant alleges false implication. He is in jail since 26.12.2021.
Learned AGA has opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the above submissions.
Keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India, considering the dictum of Apex Court in the case of Dataram Singh Vs. State of U.P. and another reported in (2018) 3 SCC 22 and recent judgment dated 11.07.2022 of the Apex Court in the case of Satendra Kumar Antil vs. C.B.I., passed in S.L.P (Crl.) No. 5191 of 2021 and considering 5-6 times overcrowding in jails over and above their capacity by the under trials and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed.
Let the applicant, Amit Kumar, involved in Case Crime No.440 of 2021, under Sections 363, 366, 376 I.P.C and 3/4 POCSO Act, Police Station Etmadpur, District- Agra be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions. Further, before issuing the release order, the sureties be verified.
(i) The applicant shall not tamper with the evidence or threaten the witnesses.
(ii) 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.
(iii) The applicant shall remain present before the Trial Court on each date fixed, either personally or as directed by the Court. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the Trial Court may proceed against him under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code.
(iv) In case the applicant misuse the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence, proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued and the applicants fail 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.
(v) 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 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 against him in accordance with law.
In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the complainant is free to move an application for cancellation of bail before this court.
Identity, status and residence proof of the applicant and sureties be verified by the court concerned before the bonds are accepted.
Order Date :- 26.9.2022 SS
Digitally signed by SURENDAR SINGH NARANG Date: 2022.09.26 17:31:43 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the applicant is entitled to bail considering the nature of charges and testimonies regarding victim's age.
Whether bail conditions can be imposed to prevent tampering with evidence and absence during trial proceedings.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Dataram Singh Vs. State of U.P.Referred¶11
(2018) 3 SCC 22 · Who else cites this
Satendra Kumar Antil vs. C.B.I.Referred¶11
S.L.P (Crl.) No. 5191 of 2021
6 provisions across 3 enactments
Amit Kumar
Siddharth
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
