Allowed

Kuldeep v. State of U.P. and 3 Other

Allahabad HC5 Dec 2022BAIL/41406/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court granted bail to the applicant in a criminal case involving IPC Section 376 and POCSO. The decision relied on the victim's statutory statements establishing consent, her alleged mature age of 18-19 years, and the applicant's lack of criminal history.

What did the court decide?

Applicant Kuldeep released on bail by furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties subject to specific conditions.

Kuldeep Vs State of U.P. and 3 Other — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 69

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 41406 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Kuldeep Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Other Counsel for Applicant :- Sandeep Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Rajiv Gupta,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶6

This bail application has been filed by the applicant seeking bail in Case Crime No. 132 of 2022, under Sections 363, 376 IPC and Section 3/4 of POCSO Act, Police Station Binauli, District Baghpat, during pendency of trial.

¶7

Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant is wholly innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case due to ulterior motive.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant has next submitted that as per the School Leaving Certificate, victim is aged about 17 years and ten months, however, as per the medical opinion, she has been found to be 18-19 years of age.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicant has next drawn the attention of the Court to the statement of the victim recorded under Section 161 CrPC, in which, she has categorically stated that on 29.05.2022 at about 2:00 PM, she, out of her own free will and consent, had gone along with the applicant and reached at Ludhiyana, where she solemnized her marriage with him and started living as husband and wife and wanted to live with him.

¶10

Learned counsel for the applicant has next drawn the attention of the Court to the statement of the victim recorded under Section 164 CrPC, in which, she has categorically stated that she, out of her own free will and consent, had gone along with the applicant and already married him.

¶11

Learned counsel for the applicant has next submitted that victim has refused to get her medically examined. Looking to the statement of the victim recorded under Sections 161 and 164 CrPC, prima facie a case for bail is made out.

¶12

Learned counsel for the applicant has next submitted that

¶13

applicant is in jail since 06.06.2022 and has no criminal history to his credit. There is no chance of applicant fleeing away from judicial process or tampering with the witnesses, as such, he may be released on bail.

¶14

Per contra, learned AGA has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the aforesaid facts. Having considered the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record, it is evident that the victim in her statement shown to be recorded under Section 161 CrPC, has categorically stated that on 29.05.2022 at about 2:00 PM, she, out of her own free will and consent, had gone along with the applicant and reached at Ludhiyana, where she solemnized her marriage with him and started living as husband and wife and wanted to live with him.

¶15

In her statement shown to be recorded under Section 164 CrPC, she again has categorically stated that she, out of her own free will and consent, had gone along with the applicant and already married him.

¶16

Furthermore, the victim has refused to get her medically examined and as per the medical opinion, she has been found to be 18-19 years of age. The victim thus is mature enough to understand consequence of her act and she has already married the applicant and is leading a happy married life. The applicant is in jail since 06.06.2022 and has no criminal history to his credit. There is no chance of applicant fleeing away from judicial process or tampering with the witnesses.

¶17

In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, I am of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. Let the applicant Kuldeep be released on bail in the aforesaid case on furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to the following conditions:-

¶18

(1). 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.

¶19

(2). 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 sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229-A IPC.

¶20

(3). 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 IPC.

¶21

(4). 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 the 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.

¶22

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

¶23

It is further directed that the identity, status and residence proof of the sureties be verified by the authorities concerned before they are accepted.

¶24

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the trial court will be at liberty to cancel the bail.

¶25

The bail application is accordingly allowed. Order Date :- 5.12.2022 Nadim

¶26

Digitally signed by NADIM ALAM Date: 2022.12.05 14:01:03 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Kuldeep v. State of U.P. and 3 Other

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kuldeep v. State of U.P. and 3 Other

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

Rahul Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Sandhesh @ Sandesh Vs State of U.P. and Another

Nihal Vs State of U.P.

Deepchandra @ Deepu Vs State of U.P.

Ved Prakash Vs State of U.P.

Pratap Lodhi @ Mukhiya Vs State of U.P.