Single judge allowed bail to applicant Amit Kumar in a case involving enticement and unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor. The court relied on inconsistent prosecutrix statements and lack of medical evidence.
Released on bail by furnishing a personal bond and two sureties subject to standard conditions.
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. - 66 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 2280 of 2022
Applicant :- Amit Kumar Opposite Party :- State Of U.P And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Shiv Sharan Tripathi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Ashutosh Kumar Pandey
Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.
3. Perused the record.
crime number in terms of Chapter XII CrPC. The prosecutrix was recovered on 06.09.2021. Thereafter statement of the prosecutrix was recorded by investigating officer under Section 161 CrPC. Same is on record as annexure-3 to the affidavit filed in support of the bail application. The prosecutrix in her aforesaid statement has not supported the prosecution story. Thereafter, the prosecutrix was requested for her internal medical examination which was refused by her. Ultimately, the statement of the prosecutrix was recorded under Section 164 CrPC wherein she has not only reiterated her earlier statement under Section 161 CrPC but has improved upon the same by stating that she was in love with Amit and she accompanied him to Noida herself.
The occurrence giving rise to present application for bail is alleged to have occurred on 29.08.2021. As such, on the date of occurrence the prosecutrix was aged about 16 years and 4 months. He, therefore, submits that in view of above, the provisions of POCSO Act shall not be applicable in the present case. It is next contended that the prosecutrix in her statements under Sections 161/164 CrPC has not supported the prosecution story as unfolded in the FIR. Prosecutrix is a consenting party. As such, the ingredients of Sections 363, 366 IPC are not satisfied against the applicant in the present case. It is lastly submitted that the medical evidence does not support the prosecution story. Placing reliance upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Vineet Kumar Vs. State of UP, (2017) 13 SCC 369 he submits that in the absence of medical evidence supporting the prosecution story no conviction of applicant is possible in this case under Section 376 IPC. It is lastly contended that applicant is a man of clean antecedents inasmuch as he has no criminal history to his credit except the present one. Applicant is in jail since 13.10.2021. As such, he has undergone more than five months of incarceration. In case applicant is enlarged on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail and shall cooperate with the trial. He further submits that since chargesheet has already been submitted against applicant, therefore, the evidence sought to be relied upon by the prosecution against applicant stands crystalized. As such, custodial arrest of applicant is not absolutely necessary during the pendency of trial. He, therefore, contends applicant is liable to be enlarged on bail.
However, they could not dispute the factual and legal submissions urged by the learned counsel for applicant.
(i) Applicant will not tamper with prosecution evidence.
(ii) Applicant will abide the orders of court, will attend the court on every date and will not delay the disposal of trial in any manner whatsoever.
(iii) Applicant will not indulge in any unlawful activities.
(iv) Applicant will not misuse the liberty of bail in any manner whatsoever.
Order Date :- 24.3.2022/Shahroz
Digitally signed by SHAHROJ ALAM Date: 2022.03.28 17:31:17 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
1 issue framed by the court
Whether applicant is eligible for bail in a cognizable offence under POCSO Act where prosecutrix statements do not support prosecution story and medical evidence is lacking.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Vineet Kumar Vs. State of UP, (2017) 13 SCC 369Referred¶13
Amit Kumar
Rajeev Misra
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
