Allowed

Parveen Kashyap v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC22 Aug 2023BAIL/27710/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Allahabad High Court allowed the second bail application of the accused charged under IPC Sections 363, 366, 376 and POCSO Act Sections 3/4. The court found it to be a bail case without expressing an opinion on case merit, while clarifying that observations do not reflect on ultimate merits.

What did the court decide?

Release on bail with a personal bond and two sureties subject to conditions including attendance in trial and no tampering with witnesses.

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

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:168211

¶2

Court No. - 84

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 27710 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Parveen Kashyap Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Yogesh Kumar Tiwari Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Mrs. Sadhna Rani (Thakur),J.

¶6

This is the second bail application moved on behalf of the applicant. The first bail application of the applicant was rejected vide order dated 12.10.2022 by this court.

¶7

Heard learned Counsel for the applicant as well as learned A.G.A. and perused the record.

¶8

The accused- applicant is involved in Case Crime No. 103 of 2022, under Sections 363, 366, 376 I.P.C. and section 3/4 POCSO Act, Police Station Lodha, District- Aligarh.

¶9

It is argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that neither the first informant, nor his wife or the victim has supported the prosecution version in the trial court. The victim and her mother have been declared hostile by the trial court. Nothing meaningful has come in their cross examination. The applicant is languishing in jail since 4.6.2022, hence, the prayer is made accordingly.

¶10

Per contra learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer of bail of the applicant

¶11

The first bail application of the applicant was rejected on the ground that as per the statements of the victim under sections 161 Cr.P.C. and 164 Cr.P.C. she was a consenting party but being her minor her consent was meaningless. The victim was shown to be minor on the basis of the certificate of the school. In the cross examination of the father of the victim as P.W.-1, the mother of the victim as P.W.-2 in the court, it has come that the age of the victim was endorsed less than her actual age in the school because of her being weak. The applicant had neither enticed away the victim nor he did any wrong with her. The victim in her statement as P.W.-3 has refused for having physical relations with the

¶12

applicant. She as P.W.-3 and her mother in her statement as P.W.-2 in the court have stated that as the victim was scolded by her mother regarding study, so the victim without informing her family members had gone to her aunt's house. Her aunt also did not inform the family members of the victim. It was further stated that Praveen/ the applicant did not entice away the victim or did any wrong with her. The applicant is languishing in jail since 4.6.2022.

¶13

Perusing the record, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature of allegations, arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and without expressing any opinion on the merit of the case, I find it to be a case of bail.

¶14

The bail application is allowed.

¶15

Let the applicant Parveen Kashyap who is involved in aforesaid crime 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.

¶16

The applicant will attend and co-operate the trial proceedings pending before the court concerned on the dates fixed after release.

¶17

He will not tamper with the witnesses.

¶18

He will not indulge in any illegal activities during the bail period.

¶19

The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be verified by the court concerned and in case of breach of any of the above conditions, the trial court shall be at liberty to cancel the bail and send the applicant to prison.

¶20

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.

¶21

Order Date :- 22.8.2023

¶22

Gss

¶23

Digitally signed by :- GIRAJA SHANKER SHARMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Parveen Kashyap v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Parveen Kashyap 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Amarvati Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Kavita Bhati and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

State of U.P. Vs Vishwa Prakash Pandey

Vinod Kumar Sharma Vs State of U.P. and Others

Parmanand Yadav and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Mohd. Yusuf and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another