Allowed

Nitesh @ Nitish Kumar v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC2 Aug 2023BAIL/21545/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Hon'ble High Court of Judicature at Allahabad dismissed a bail application filed by Nitesh @ Nitish Kumar in a POCSO case where the victim was a young child and the trial was long pending. The court granted bail on the ground of long incarceration, without expressing an opinion on the merits.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail by furnishing a personal bond and two sureties in the prescribed amounts.

Nitesh @ Nitish Kumar Vs State of U.P. and 3… — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:154785

¶2

Court No. - 70

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 21545 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Nitesh @ Nitish Kumar Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Tabassum Hashmi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Sameer Jain,J.

¶6

Dr. S.B. Maurya, learned AGA-I apprised the Court that on 09.05.2023 notice has been served upon the informant. Despite service of notice, none appeared on behalf of the informant.

¶7

Heard Ms. Tabassum Hashmi, learned counsel for the applicant and Dr. S.B. Maurya, learned AGA-I for the State.

¶8

The instant bail application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 94 of 2016, Sessions Trial No. 84 of 2016, under Sections 376F, 506 IPC and Section 3-a/4 POCSO Act, Police Station Loni Border, District Ghaziabad during pendency of the trial.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that this is second bail application filed on behalf of the applicant. The first bail application of the applicant has been dismissed by this Court vide order dated 21.02.2018 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 41143 of 2016 and she is pressing the second bail application on the sole ground that applicant is in jail since 06.02.2016 i.e. for about seven and half years and till date trial of the case could not be concluded. She further submits that applicant is not having any criminal history, therefore, considering the long incarceration of the applicant, he may be released on bail.

¶10

Per contra, learned AGA opposed the prayer for bail and submits that this is second bail application. The first bail application of the applicant has already been dismissed after considering the entire facts of the case. He next submits that age of the victim was hardly four and half years but he fairly conceded that during medical examination doctor did not find either any external or internal injury on her body and applicant in the present matter is in jail

¶11

since 06.02.2016 i.e. about than seven and half years.

¶12

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case.

¶13

Although, this is second bail application filed on behalf of the applicant. The first bail application of the applicant has been dismissed way back in the year 2018 and there is allegation that applicant committed rape with victim aged about four and half years but from the perusal of the medical report, it appears that doctor did not find any injury on the body of the victim and applicant in the present matter is in jail since 06.02.2016 i.e. about than seven and half years.

¶14

Further, although, applicant is in jail since 06.02.2016 i.e. for about seven and half years but till date trial of the case could not be concluded, however, learned counsel for the applicant during the course of argument submits that victim and informant have already been examined.

¶15

Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case discussed above, particularly the long incarceration of applicant about seven and half years, in my view, applicant is entitled to be released on bail.

¶16

Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the instant bail application is allowed .

¶17

Let the applicant - Nitesh @ Nitish Kumar be released on bail in the aforesaid case on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:-

¶18

(i) The applicant shall appear before the trial court on the dates fixed, unless his personal presence is exempted.

¶19

(ii) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly, make inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶20

(iii) The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal and anti-social activity.

¶21

In case of breach of any of the above condition, the prosecution will be at liberty to move an application before this

¶22

Court for cancellation of the bail of the applicant.

¶23

It is clarified that the observations made herein are limited to the facts brought in by the parties pertaining to the disposal of bail application and the said observations shall have no bearing on the merits of the case during trial.

¶24

Order Date :- 2.8.2023 AK Pandey

¶25

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

Nitesh @ Nitish Kumar v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nitesh @ Nitish Kumar 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rikki @ Chahat Vs State of U.P.

Smt. Chandravati Vs State of U.P.

Madan Vs State of U.P.

Sonu Vs State of U.P.

Aman Vs State of U.P. and Another

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