Allowed

Kuldeep v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC25 Jul 2023BAIL/32460/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge allowed bail to the applicant in a POCSO/rape FIR where the victim's statements contained material contradictions and a fare dispute was alleged. The order was limited to bail disposal without pre-judgment on merits.

What did the court decide?

Allowed bail on personal bond and two sureties subject to standard conditions and a disclaimer on merits.

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

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:149411

¶2

Court No. - 70

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 32460 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Kuldeep Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Anand Pati Tiwari,Deepak Upadhyay Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Sameer Jain,J.

¶6

Sri Ghanshyam Mishra, learned Brief Holder apprised the Court that on 25.5.2023, notice has been served to the informant. Despite service of notice, none appeared on behalf of the informant.

¶7

Heard Sri Anand Pati Tiwari, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Ghanshyam Mishra, learned Brief Holder for the Staterespondent.

¶8

The instant application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 65 of 2023, under Sections 354, 452, 506, 376 IPC and Section 3/4 POCSO Act, Police Station Kotwali Dehat, District Etah, during pendency of the trial in the court below.

¶9

FIR of the present case was lodged against the applicant under sections 354, 506 and 452 IPC and according to the FIR, applicant harassed the daughter of the informant while she was going to school and thereafter on 16.2.2023, he entered in the house of the informant and tried to abduct the victim.

¶10

Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the entire allegation of harassment and rape made against the applicant in the statement of the victim recorded under sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. is totally false and baseless.

¶11

He further submitted that even there are material contradictions in both the statements of the victim.

¶12

He next submitted that applicant is driver of e-rickshaw and some dispute with regard to the payment of fare of e-rickshaw arose between applicant and family members of the victim and family members of the victim assaulted the applicant and this fact

¶13

of dispute is evident even from the statement of Hari Shanker owner of e-rickshaw and two other independent witnesses and their statements have been annexed alongwith the instant bail application.

¶14

He next submitted that applicant is having no criminal history and he is in jail in the present matter since 17.2.2023, therefore, he may be released on bail.

¶15

Per contra, learned AGA opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that victim is below 18 years old and she made allegation of rape against applicant in her both the statements recorded under sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. but could not dispute the fact that there are material contradictions in both the statements of the victim.

¶16

He further could not dispute the fact that from the statement of the independent witnesses and owner of the e-rickshaw, it appears that some dispute with regard to the payment arose between applicant and family members of the victim.

¶17

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

¶18

Although, victim i.e. prosecutrix of the case appears to be minor below 18 years and she made allegation of rape against the applicant but from the perusal of both the statements of the victim recorded under sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C., it appears that there are material contradictions in both the statements.

¶19

Further, as per applicant, he was falsely implicated in the present matter due to the dispute of payment of fare of e-rickshaw arose between him and family members of the victim and this fact also finds support by the owner of e-rickshaw and two other witnesses.

¶20

Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, discussed above, in my view, applicant is entitled to be released on bail.

¶21

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

¶22

Let the applicant- Kuldeep , 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

¶23

following conditions:-

¶24

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

¶25

(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.

¶26

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

¶27

In case of breach of any of the above condition, the prosecution will be at liberty to move an application before this Court for cancellation of the bail of the applicant.

¶28

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.

¶29

Order Date :- 25.7.2023

¶30

Ankita

¶31

Digitally signed by :- ANKITA SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Kuldeep v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kuldeep 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

Ramu Alias Sunil Kumar Vs State of U.P.

Pravesh Bhati Vs State of U.P.

Yusuf Khan Vs State of U.P.

Arif Ali Vs State of U.P.

Khursheed @ Raja Khan Vs State of U.P.and 3 Others

Raj Vs State of U.P.