Allowed

Purnesh Kumar @ Anuj v. State U.P. Thru.Prin.Secy. Home Lko. 3 Others

Allahabad HC2 Nov 2023/2217/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a bail application filed by an accused in a POCSO case involving alleged sodomy of a minor child. Relying on the absence of physical injury and negative medico-legal findings regarding spermatozoa, the court granted bail pending trial.

What did the court decide?

Applicant-pursuant to the court order, was released on bail upon furnishing a personal bond and two sureties in the amount specified by the magistrate/court.

Purnesh Kumar @ Anuj Vs State U.P… — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC-LKO:72203

¶2

Court No. - 16

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 2217 of 2022

¶4

Applicant :- Purnesh Kumar @ Anuj Opposite Party :- State U.P. Thru.Prin.Secy. Home Lko. 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Arvind Kumar Kanaujea,Gaurav Singh,Rajendra Singh Chauhan,Shailesh Sachan Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Vijay Kumar

¶5

Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,J.

¶6

1. Heard Sri Shailesh Sachan, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Anant Pratap Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the records.

¶7

2. The instant application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No.347 of 2021, under Sections 377, 504, 506 I.P.C. and Section 5M/6 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, registered at Police Station Kachhauna, District Hardoi.

¶8

3. The aforesaid case has been registered on the basis of an F.I.R. lodged on 21.06.2021 alleging that the applicant had sodomized the informant's 8 years old mentally retarded son on 16.06.2021, while the informant was away. The informant came to know about the incident upon returning to the village on 18.06.2021.

¶9

4. Medico legal examination report of the victim does not mention any injury on any part of his body. In the statement of the victim recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. he stated that neither the applicant had torn his cloths nor was the victim disrobed.

¶10

5. Copy of the relevant extract of case diary annexed with the counter affidavit indicates that in the pathological report of anal smear swab, no spermatozoa was seen.

¶11

6. In the affidavit filed in support of bail application it has been stated that the applicant is innocent, he has been falsely implicated in the

¶12

present case and he has no criminal history.

¶13

7. The learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail but he could not dispute the aforesaid aspects of the matter.

¶14

8. Having considered the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view the fact that the applicant is languishing in jail since 03.01.2022 and without making any observation, which may affect the merits of the case, I am of the view that the aforesaid facts are sufficient for making out a case for enlargement of the applicant on bail in the aforesaid crime.

¶15

9. Accordingly, this bail application stands allowed .

¶16

10. Let the applicant-Purnesh Kumar @ Anuj be released on bail in aforementioned case on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of magistrate/court concerned, subject to following conditions:-

¶17

(i) the applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence;

¶18

(ii) the applicant shall not pressurize the prosecution witnesses;

¶19

(iii) the applicant shall appear on each and every date fixed by the trial court.

¶20

(Subhash Vidyarthi, J.)

¶21

Order Date :- 2.11.2023 prateek

¶22

Digitally signed by :- PRATEEK ARORA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Purnesh Kumar @ Anuj v. State U.P. Thru.Prin.Secy. Home Lko. 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Purnesh Kumar @ Anuj v. State U.P. Thru.Prin.Secy. Home Lko. 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

Suresh Kotedar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko.

Ram Avatar and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Arvind Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Kamal @ Lambu Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko.

Smt. Sunita Devi Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Raghuveer Prasad S/O Shri Putti Lal (Second Bail) Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.