Allowed

Satish Kumar v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC21 Sept 2022BAIL/16974/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This High Court granted bail to an applicant accused of enticement and rape involving a 19-year-old female victim. The court incorporated conditions of bail regarding evidence tampering and court attendance amidst jail overcrowding concerns.

What did the court decide?

Applicant is to be released on bail by furnishing a personal bond and two sureties in the like amount subject to specific conditions.

Satish Kumar Vs State of U.P. and Another — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 69

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 16974 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Satish Kumar Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Sanjai Kumar Pandey,Kunwar Abhishek Singh,Suresh Pratap Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A., Prabhakar Dubey

¶4

Hon'ble Siddharth,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A for the State.

¶6

Compliance affidavit has been filed by learned A.G.A is taken on record.

¶7

As per office report dated 24.08.2022, notice has been served on brother of the informant.

¶8

Sri Prabhakar Dubey, Advocate has put in appearance on behalf of informant.

¶9

There is allegation against applicant of enticement of minor girl with intent to marry and commission of rape.

¶10

Counsel for the applicant submits that from the statement of the victim recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., she is clearly a consenting party. As per the report of C.M.O., her age has been found to be about 18 years. The victim was not minor but major at the time of alleged offence. The applicant has been falsely implicated in this case. The applicant is in jail since 01.02.2022 and has no criminal history to his credit.

¶11

On the other hand learned A.G.A has opposed the prayer for bail.

¶12

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

¶13

out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed.

¶14

Let the applicant, Satish Kumar, involved in Case Crime No. 305 of 2021, under Sections- 363, 366, 376 IPC read with Section 3/4 of POCSO Act, Police Station- Siddharth Nagar, District- Siddharth Nagar, 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.

¶15

(i) The applicant shall not tamper with the evidence or threaten the witnesses.

¶16

(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.

¶17

(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.

¶18

(iv) In case the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence, proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued and the applicant fails 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.

¶19

(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.

¶20

In case, of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.

¶21

Identity, status and residence proof of the applicant and sureties be verified by the court concerned before the bonds are accepted.

¶22

Order Date :- 21.9.2022 / Rohit

¶23

Digitally signed by ROHIT DAS Date: 2022.09.22 13:29:04 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Satish Kumar v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Satish Kumar v. State of U.P. and Another

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

Kamal Lalvani @ Karan Vs State of U.P.

Sujeet Kumar Vs State of U.P.

Zahid Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Amarnath Verma Vs State of U.P.

Pintu @ Sri Ram Vs State of U.P. and Another

Nandan Singh Vs State of U.P and Another