Allowed

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

Allahabad HC14 Dec 2022BAIL/32514/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge order on criminal bail application in a POCSO case involving molestation. Court examined prosecution delay and contradictions, relying on balancing factors and cited Apex Court dictum to grant bail on personal bond and sureties subject to strict conditions.

What did the court decide?

Released on bail by furnishing a personal bond and two local sureties each of the like amount.

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

¶1

Court No. - 90

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 32514 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Anoop Kumar Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Mool Chandra Maurya Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Shiv Shanker Prasad,J.

¶5

Heard Mr. Mool Chandra Maurya, learned counsel for the applicant, Mr. Amit Kumar Shukla, learned counsel for the State as well as perused the entire material available on record.

¶6

The present bail application has been filed by the applicant- Anoop Kumar with a prayer to enlarge him on bail in Crime No. 93 of 2022, under Sections 452, 354 and 506 I.P.C. and Sections 7/8 POCSO Act, Police StationAliganj, District-Etah, during the pendency of trial.

¶7

The present first information report lodged on 15th April, 2022 at 17.44 hours by the informant i.e. father of the victim against four named accused persons including the applicant alleging therein that on 13th April, 2022 at 09.45 p.m. (night) when the wife of the informant went to fill water from a hand pump, at that time the applicant barged into his house and found the victim alone, started molesting her. When the victim raised her alarm, the wife of the informant reached the spot, he after pushing her, ran away. When the informant went to the house of the applicant to complaint from his family members about the said incident, the brother, father and mother of the applicant threatened to kill him.

¶8

It has been argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that the present first information report lodged by the informant is nothing but a bundle of lie and the same has been lodged only for exploiting the applicant by indulging his name in a fake, false and frivolous case. The entire prosecution story as unfolded in the first information report is absolutely a self-made story projected by the informant. The present first information report has been lodged after delay of 2 days for which no plausible explanation has been given which makes the entire prosecution case doubtful. The real fact is that family of the applicant and the informant are residing in same colony where a government hand pump is installed and on the date of incident due to fill the water some hot words were exchanged between the sister of the applicant and the victim, due to which the informant has engineered the present case with false and frivolous allegations. There are some contradictions in the version of the first information report, in the statements of the victim recorded under

¶9

Sections 161 and 164. In the statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., the victim has stated that the applicant has only tried to molest her. The offence alleged against the applicant is triable by a Magistrate and the maximum sentence provided for the alleged offence is maximum to 7 years. The applicant has no criminal antecedents to his credit except the present one. It is next contended that there is no possibility of the applicant of fleeing away from the judicial process or tampering with the witnesses and in case, the applicant is enlarged on bail, the applicant shall not misuse the liberty of bail. The applicant is in jail since 11th May, 2022. The applicant has undergone more than seven months of incarceration.

¶10

Per contra learned A.G.A. and the learned counsel for the complainant have opposed the bail prayer of the applicant but they could not dispute the factual submissions as urged by the learned counsel for the applicant.

¶11

Considering the nature of the offence, provision for initiation of cases and release the accused, material/evidence brought on record, complicity of the accused, severity of punishment, the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, as well as the dictum of Apex Court in the case of Dataram Singh Versus State of U.P. and another, reported in (2018) 3 SCC 22, let the applicant involved in aforesaid case crime be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two local sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned, subject to the following conditions:-

¶12

(i) 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.

¶13

(ii) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufÏcient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶14

(iii) 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.

¶15

(iv) 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

¶16

absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufÏcient 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.

¶17

It is clarified that the observations, if any, made in this order are strictly confined to the disposal of the bail application and must not be construed to have any reflection on the ultimate merits of the case.

¶18

(Shiv Shanker Prasad, J.)

¶19

Order Date :- 14.12.2022

¶20

Sushil/-

¶21

Digitally signed by SUSHIL KUMAR SINGH Date: 2022.12.16 10:03:23 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anoop 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

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mandeep Vs State of U.P.

Afjal Warsi Vs State of U.P.

Ramsevak Vs State of U.P.

Suman Kumar Vs State of U.P.

Jeeshan Vs State of U.P. through principal secretary home And 3 Others

Abhishek Kharwar @ Golu Vs State of U.P.