Dismissed¶10

Kuldeep v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC24 Jan 2023BAIL/20955/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bail rejected; rape of minor girl (age 11 per prosecution); POCSO Ss. 3/4 with IPC Ss. 376, 323, 506; Case Crime No. 37 of 2021, P.S. Badhpura, District Etawah; s.161 Cr.P.C. statement silent on rape, s.164 statement after more than 18 months; alleged engine-rent dispute of Rs. 10,000/- as motive; applicant in jail since 13.07.2021; no criminal history; gravity of offence; Allahabad High Court, order dated 24.1.2023.

What did the court decide?

Considering the submissions of counsel, the nature of allegations and the gravity of the offence, and without expressing any opinion on the merits, the Court held that no case for grant of bail was made out and rejected the bail application. ¶10

Kuldeep Vs State of U.P. — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Court No. - 86

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 20955 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Kuldeep Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Akash Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Saral Singh

¶4

Hon'ble Mayank Kumar Jain,J.

¶5

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

¶6

The present bail application has been filed on behalf of applicant in Case Crime No. 37 of 2021, under Section 376, 323, 506 I.P.C. and 3/4 POCSO Act, Police Station Badhpura, District Etawah with the prayer to enlarge the applicant on bail.

¶7

It is argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that applicant is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in the present case for the reason that applicant is a engine mechanic which is used for irrigation in the agricultural field. Apart from that, applicant is also having another engine which he used to provide on rent to the farmers. He further submits that first informant has taken the engine for irrigation from the applicant on rent, and when the applicant asked from the first informant to give the rent of Rs. 10,000/- and also to return the engine, then he has refused to do so and some hot conversation was taken place between them. It is next submitted that victim in her statement under section 161 Cr. P.C. did not made any allegation about the rape against the applicant and after more than 18 months statement under section 164 Cr. P.C. was recorded in which the victim made certain allegation against the applicant. It is further submitted that statement of mother of the victim was recorded after forty three days. Applicant has no criminal history. Nothing adverse finding has been recorded during the medical examination of the victim. It has been further submitted that applicant is languishing in jail since 13.07.2021 having no criminal history and that in case the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate in trial.

¶8

Per contra, learned A.G.A. assisted by the learned counsel for the informant opposed the prayer for bail and argued that age of victim is 11 years and she is minor. She fully corroborated the contents of rape in her statement under section 164 Cr. P.C. He submits that even at the time of medical, she narrated the same

¶9

fact, therefore applicant is not entitled for bail.

¶10

Considering the submissions of learned counsel for the parties, nature of allegations, gravity of offence, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court is of the opinion that no case for grant of bail is made out. Hence, the bail application is hereby rejected.

¶11

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.

¶12

Order Date :- 24.1.2023 T.S.

¶13

Digitally signed by :- TRIBHUWAN SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Kuldeep v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kuldeep v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vishal Vs State of U.P.

Saurabh Pratap Singh Vs State of U.P.

Pooja Singh Vs State of U.P.

Sanjay Kumar Sharma @ Kallu Vs State of U.P.

Ravi Shankar @ Ravi Shankar Patel Vs State of U.P.

Aashu @ Satyapal Vs State of U.P.