Allowed

Kallu Alias Mukesh Shukla v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC11 Nov 2022BAIL/34138/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court allowed a bail application in a criminal case involving sexual offences against a child. The court granted bail due to discrepancies between the FIR and the victim's subsequent statements recorded under Cr.P.C. sections 161 and 164.

What did the court decide?

Bail allowed; order grounded on discrepancies in victim statements between FIR and recorded evidence; applicant to furnish personal bond and sureties.

Kallu Alias Mukesh Shukla Vs State of U.P… — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 79

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 34138 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Kallu Alias Mukesh Shukla Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Mohit Singh,Vishal Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,J.

¶5

1.Heard Sri Dilip Shukla, Advocate holding brief of Sri Mohit Singh, the learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Arun Kumar Pandey, the learned Additional Government Advocate and perused the record.

¶6

2.Notice of the present application was issued to the informant by means of an order dated 06.08.2022. The office has reported that notice has been served but nobody has put in appearance to oppose the prayer for grant of bail.

¶7

3.The instant application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 177 of 2022, under Sections 323, 377, 511, 506 IPC and 3-ka/4 Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, Police Station Bidhuna, District Auraiya.

¶8

4.The aforesaid case has been registered on the basis of a first information report alleging that the applicant tried to commit a misdeed with the informant's son.

¶9

5.In his statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., the informant's son stated that the applicant had taken him to a dilapidated house behind Tehsil and he tried to commit a misdeed with him and he made certain other allegations also. In his statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., the victim stated that the applicant took him to a government school and tried to commit a misdeed behind the school premises but the victim started running away. Thereafter, the applicant took him to a dilapidated building behind the Tehsil and he committed certain acts narrated in the statement regarding which there was no allegation in the previous statements or in the FIR.

¶10

6.It has been averred in the affidavit filed in support of the bail application that the applicant is an innocent person, he has been falsely implicated in the case, he is having no previous criminal history and he is in jail since 17.05.2022. It has also been stated in the affidavit that there is no possibility of the applicant

¶11

tampering with any evidence and in such circumstances, the applicant is entitled for bail. It is also stated in the affidavit that the applicant will not misuse the liberty of bail and he will fully cooperate in the investigation.

¶12

7.Per contra, the learned Additional Government Advocate has opposed the prayer for grant of bail, but he could not dispute the aforesaid aspects of the matter.

¶13

8.Having considered the aforesaid facts and submissions and keeping in view the discrepancies in the FIR version and the statements of the alleged victim recorded under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C., I am of the view that the aforesaid discrepancies are sufficient to make out a case for enlargement of the applicant on bail.

¶14

9.In light of the preceding discussion and without making any observation on the merit of the case, the instant bail application is allowed .

¶15

10.Let the applicant Kallu Alias Mukesh Shukla be released on bail in Case Crime No. 177 of 2022, under Sections 323, 377, 511, 506 IPC and 3-ka/4 Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, Police Station Bidhuna, District Auraiya on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court below, subject to the following conditions:-

¶16

(i) The applicant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.

¶17

(ii) The applicant will not influence any witness.

¶18

(iii) The applicant will appear before the trial court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted.

¶19

(iv) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶20

11.In case of breach of any of the above condition, the prosecution shall be at liberty to move an application before this Court seeking cancellation of the bail.

¶21

Order Date :- 11.11.2022 Ashish Pd.

¶22

Digitally signed by ASHISH PRASAD Date: 2022.11.15 17:57:17 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Kallu Alias Mukesh Shukla v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kallu Alias Mukesh Shukla 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Suresh Yadav Vs State of U.P.

Mahesh Kumar Singh Vs State of U.P.

Pavan Vs State of U.P.

Shyamji @ Chakoi and 4 Others Vs State of U.P.

Attu@ Sultan Vs State of U.P.

Sanavvar @ Khali Vs State of U.P.