Allowed

Surendra @ Shailendra Kumar v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC1 Feb 2023BAIL/16141/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Application for bail under IPC 323, 376 and POCSO in a case against a minor victim. Court allowed bail without commenting on merits, noting victim's inconsistent testimony and absence of prior criminal history.

What did the court decide?

Applicant enlarged on bail on furnishing personal bond and two sureties subject to specific conditions of appearance and conduct.

Surendra @ Shailendra Kumar Vs State of U.P… — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Court No. - 81

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 16141 of 2021

¶3

Applicant :- Surendra @ Shailendra Kumar Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Yadvendra Singh, A.K. Singh Solanki Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A., Syed Mohammed Jafer Husain

¶4

Hon'ble Mrs. Saroj Yadav,J.

¶5

The present bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant in Case Crime No. 486 of 2020, under Sections 323, 376 IPC and Section 3/4 Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act 2012, Police Station Soron, District Kasganj, with the prayer to enlarge him on bail.

¶6

Heard Sri Ajay Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Purshottam Maurya, learned A.G.A. for the State respondent. None turned up on behalf of the complainant though the name of the learned counsel for the complainant is printed in the cause list.

¶7

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the case. He further submitted that the first information report has been lodged after a delay of three days. He further submitted that in the medico-legal examination no injury of any kind has been found on the person of the victim. He further submitted that the victim has been examined as P.W. 2 before the trial Court wherein she has not supported the version of the F.I.R. He further submitted that there is no chance of the applicant's fleeing away from the judicial process or tampering with the prosecution evidence. He further submitted that the accused applicant is not having any criminal history as has been stated in paragraph no. 16 of the afÏdavit filed in support of the bail application. The accused applicant is languishing in jail since 26.10.2020, as such, he may be enlarged on bail.

¶8

Per contra, learned A.G.A. appearing on behalf of the State-respondent opposed the bail application of the accused applicant and submitted that the victim is a minor girl, therefore the accused applicant should not be enlarged on bail.

¶9

Considered the rival submissions and perused the material available on record.

¶10

It transpires from the record that the victim has been examined as P.W. 2 before the trial Court wherein she has not supported the version of the FIR.

¶11

Considering all the facts and circumstances of the case, without commenting on the merits of the case, it appears just to enlarge the applicant on bail.

¶12

Accordingly, the bail application filed on behalf of applicant is allowed .

¶13

Let the applicant Surendra @ Shailendra Kumar involved in Case Crime No. 486 of 2020, under Sections 323, 376 IPC and Section 3/4 Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act 2012, Police Station Soron, District Kasganj,, 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 with the following conditions;

¶14

(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.

¶15

(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 229-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶16

(iii) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence

¶17

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.

¶18

(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 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.

¶19

(v)The party shall file computer generated copy of such order downloaded from the ofÏcial website of High Court Allahabad.

¶20

(vi) The computer generated copy of such order shall be self attested by the counsel of the party concerned.

¶21

(vii) The concerned Court/Authority/OfÏcial shall verify the authenticity of such computerized copy of the order from the ofÏcial website of High Court Allahabad and shall make a declaration of such verification in writing.

¶22

It may be observed that in the event of any breach of the aforesaid conditions, the court below shall be at liberty to proceed for the cancellation of applicant's bail.

¶23

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.

¶24

(Mrs. Saroj Yadav, J.)

¶25

Order Date :- 1.2.2023 Arun

¶26

Digitally signed by :- ARUN KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Surendra @ Shailendra Kumar v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Surendra @ Shailendra Kumar v. State of U.P. and Another

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

Aanchal Vs State of U.P.

Rajkamal Vs State of U.P.

Vinod Vs State of U.P.

Ravendra @ Ravindra Vs State of U.P. and Another

Raj Basant @ Gopal Vs State of U.P.

Dharmendra Vs State of U.P