Allowed

Kamil v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC17 Aug 2023BAIL/14046/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

AHC allowed a bail application for an applicant accused of abduction and offences under IPC and POCSO. The court noted uncertainty regarding the victim's age and age allegations, one-sided investigation, and jail overcrowding under Article 21, finding grounds for bail without expressing an opinion on merits.

What did the court decide?

Applicant Kamil released on bail via personal bond and two sureties subject to conditions prohibiting tampering, ensuring attendance, and urging court appearance on critical dates.

Kamil Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:165085

¶2

Court No. - 64

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 14046 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Kamil Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Ajay Kumar Mishra,Jitendra Singh,Santosh Kumar Tiwari Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Safiullah

¶5

Hon'ble Siddharth,J.

¶6

Heard Sri Santosh Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel for the applicant; Sri Safiullah, learned counsel for the informant and learned A.G.A for the State.

¶7

There was allegation against unknown accused in the FIR regarding abduction of minor girl. Subsequently, on the basis of statement of victim recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., implication under Sections 376-D, 342 and 5/6 of POCSO Act has also been made.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that from ossification test report of the victim sent to this Court, her age has been found to be 16 years. Given margin of two years on the higher side, she can be considered to be major. In the statement of the victim recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C., she has not made any allegation of gang rape. However in her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., she has made such an allegation but the same is not corroborated from the medical evidence. He has submitted that the victim and the applicant are neighbours. He has been falsely implicated in this case along with co-accused on account of neighbourly dispute between the parties. The applicant is in jail since 07.02.2023 and has no criminal history to his credit.

¶9

On the other hand learned A.G.A has opposed the prayer for bail.

¶10

Keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused; submissions of the learned counsel for the parties noted above; finding force in the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant; keeping view the uncertainty regarding conclusion of trial; one sided investigation by police, ignoring the

¶11

case of accused side; applicant being under-trial having fundamental right to speedy trial; larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India; considering the dictum of Apex Court in the case of Satendra Kumar Antil vs. C.B.I., passed in S.L.P (Crl.) No. 5191 of 2021; considering 5-6 times overcrowding in jails over and above their capacity by the under trials and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed.

¶12

Let the applicant, Kamil, involved in Case Crime No. 11 of 2023, under Sections- 342, 363, 376-D IPC and 5/6 of POCSO Act, Police Station- Asmoli, District- Sambhal, be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions. Further, before issuing the release order, the sureties be verified.

¶13

(i) The applicant shall not tamper with the evidence or threaten the witnesses.

¶14

(ii) 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.

¶15

(iii) The applicant shall remain present before the Trial Court on each date fixed, either personally or as directed by the Court. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the Trial Court may proceed against him under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶16

(iv) 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.

¶17

(v) 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 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

¶18

proceed against him in accordance with law.

¶19

In case, of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.

¶20

Identity and residence proof of the applicant and sureties be verified by the court concerned before the bonds are accepted.

¶21

Order Date :- 17.8.2023 Rohit

¶22

Digitally signed by :- ROHIT DAS High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Kamil v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kamil 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Nikesh Vs State of U.P.

Veeresh Kumar Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Gayadeen Rajput Vs State of U.P.and Another

Victim Vs State of U.P. and Another

District Inspector of Schools Vs Ajay Kumar

Rahil Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others