Allowed

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

Allahabad HC12 Sept 2022BAIL/20290/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a bail application for the applicant accused under IPC Sections 363, 366, 376 and POCSO. The court found the case fit for bail considering the prima facie satisfaction, nature of evidence, and circumstances, despite the severity of charges.

What did the court decide?

Bail granted on a personal bond with two sureties, subject to specific conditions including non-tampering with evidence and appearance before the trial court.

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

¶1

Court No. - 76

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 20290 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Amit Kumar Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Ram Om Vikram Singh Chauhan,Arun Kumar Singh,Shiv Om Vikram Singh Chauhan Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Mohd. Aslam,J.

¶5

Heard Sri S.O.V.S. Chauhan, learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶6

The instant application has been moved on behalf of applicant with a prayer to enlarge him on bail in Case Crime No.13 of 2022, under Sections 363, 366, 376 I.P.C. & 3/4 of POCSO Act, Police Station Phaphund, District Auraiya, during pendency of trial.

¶7

It is contended by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case due to ulterior motive. It is further contended that as per statement of victim under Sections 161 & 164 Cr.P.C., the father of the victim wanted to marry her with an aged person, therefore, she went with the applicant. It is further contended that she has also submitted in her statements under Sections 161 & 164 Cr.P.C. that applicant has not committed rape upon her. It is further contended that as per prosecution case, the victim has not stated that the applicant has committed any sort of sexual assault upon her and the victim has refused for her internal medical examination and has told her age about 17 years and as per ossification test her age was found about 18 years. It is further contended that the applicant has no criminal history to his credit. It is further contended that the applicant is languishing in jail since 26.1.2022 and if the applicant is released on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶8

Learned A.G.A. for the State has opposed the prayer for bail, but has not disputed the above fact.

¶9

Having heard the submissions of learned counsel for the parties, nature of accusation and the severity of the punishment in case of conviction and the nature of supporting evidence, prima facie satisfaction of the Court in support of the charge and considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I find it to be a fit case for bail.

¶10

Accordingly, the bail application stands allowed.

¶11

Let the applicant Amit Kumar involved in the aforesaid crime be released on bail on executing a personal bond and furnishing two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:-

¶12

i) The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence.

¶13

ii) The applicant shall not threaten or harass the prosecution witnesses;

¶14

iii) The applicant shall appear on the date fixed by the trial court;

¶15

iv) The applicant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which the applicant is accused, or suspected of the commission;

¶16

v) 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 such person from disclosing facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶17

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

¶18

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

¶19

Order Date :- 12.9.2022 Anil K. Sharma

¶20

Digitally signed by ANIL KUMAR SHARMA Date: 2022.09.14 13:41:29 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Amit 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shamim Vs State

Kaluti Vs State

Premi and Ors. Vs State of U.P.

Ram Chandra and Others Vs State of U.P.

Vishwanth Yadav Vs State of U.P.

Kuldeep Vs State of U.P.