Allowed

Amit Kumar v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC10 Jul 2023BAIL/28838/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a bail application under Section 376 IPC and Section 4 POCSO, the court allowed bail for the applicant who was nabbed following an alleged offense against the prosecutrix's modesty. The court noted the prosecutrix declared herself hostile after examination during the trial commencing from the charge sheet.

What did the court decide?

Release on bail with personal bond and two sureties, subject to specific conditions including attendance in court and conclusion of trial within one year.

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

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:136002

¶2

Court No. - 65

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 28838 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Amit Kumar Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Abhishek Kumar Yadav,Kanchan Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.

¶6

Heard Mr. Abhishek Kumar Yadav, the learned counsel for applicant and the learned A.G.A. for State.

¶7

Perused the record.

¶8

This application for bail has been filed by applicant Amit Kumar seeking his enlargement on bail in Case Crime No.572 of 2022, under Section 376 IPC, police station Sumerpur, district Hamirpur, during the pendency of trial.

¶9

Record shows that in respect of an incident which is alleged to have occurred on 11.12.2022, a delayed F.I.R. dated 19.12.2022 was lodged by first informant, namely, Smt. Rani (mother of the prosecutrix) and was registered as Case Crime No.0572 of 2022, under Sections 376, 506 IPC and Section 4 Pocso Act, police station Sumerpur, district Hamirpur. In the aforesaid F.I.R., the applicant Amit Kumar has been nominated as solitary named accused.

¶10

The gravamen of the allegations made in the F.I.R. dated 19.12.2022 is to the effect that the named accused i.e applicant herein forcibly and deliberately dislodged the modesty of the prosecutrix/daughter of the first informant. On the information given by the prosecutrix, applicant was nabbed by the parents of the prosecutrix and ultimately handed over to the police in the morning of the next date.

¶11

Learned counsel for the applicant contends that after investigation, charge-sheet was submitted against the applicant. No offence under Section 4 of the Pocso Act was established against applicant. The court concerned took cognizance upon the charge-sheet and trial proceedings commenced. It is further contended that during the penency of trial, the prosecution examined the prosecutrix as PW-2 in S.C. No.467/2023 (State Vs. Amit), under Section 376 IPC, police station Sumerpur, district Hamirpur. However, the prosecutirx has not supported the F.I.R. and therefore she has been declared hostile. On the above premise, the learned counsel for applicant contends that since the prosecutrix has

¶12

not supported the F.I.R., no useful purpose will be served in prolonging the custodial arrest of applicant. As such applicant is liable to be enlarged on bail. Even otherwise, the applicant is a man of clean antecedents inasmuch as he has no criminal history to his credit except the present one. The applicant is in jail since 05.01.2023. As such he has undergone more than six months of incarceration. In case the applicant is enlarged on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail and shall cooperate with the trial.

¶13

Per contra, the learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail. However, he could not dislodge the factual and legal submissions urged by the learned counsel for applicant with reference to the record at this stage.

¶14

Having heard the leaned counsel for applicant, the learned A.G.A. for State, upon perusal of material brought on record, evidence, complicity of the accused, accusation made, nature and gravity of offence and coupled with the fact that the prosecutrix has been examined before the court below as PW2 in S.C. No.467/2023 (State Vs. Amit) in which she has not supported the F.I.R. and therefore she has been declared hostile. In view of above, no good ground exists to prolong the custodial arrest of the applicant, considering the clean antecedents of the applicant as well as the period of incarceration undergone by applicant, but without making any comment on the merits of the case, the applicant has made out a case for bail.

¶15

Accordingly, the bail application is allowed.

¶16

Let the applicant Amit Kumar involved in aforesaid case crime number, be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions which are being imposed in the interest of justice :-

¶17

(i) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the date 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.

¶18

(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 I.P.C.

¶19

(iii) 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., may be issued and if applicant fails to

¶20

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 I.P.C.

¶21

(iv) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on dates fixed for (1) opening of the case, (2) framing of charge and (3) 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.

¶22

(v) The trial court may make all possible efforts/endeavour and try to conclude the trial within a period of one year after the release of the applicant.

¶23

However, it is made clear that any wilful violation of above conditions by the applicant, shall have serious repercussion on his bail so granted by this court and the trial court is at liberty to cancel the bail, after recording the reasons for doing so, in the given case of any of the condition mentioned above.

¶24

Order Date :- 10.7.2023. Rks.

¶25

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

Amit Kumar v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Amit Kumar v. State of U.P.

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

Arjun and 2 Others Vs State of U.P.

Bal Mukund Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Bhurey Singh Vs State of U.P.

Vivek Vs State of U.P.

Faizan Vs State of U.P.

Devendra Kumar Vs State of U.P.