Allowed

Pradeep Kumar v. State of U.P.and 3 Others

Allahabad HC12 Sept 2023BAIL/38208/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court allowed bail to applicant charged with IPC and POCSO offences. Bail granted accommodanting age of victim as major and noting lack of corroborative medical evidence. Conditions imposed regarding tampering with witnesses and appearance.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail on furnishing personal bond and two sureties with conditions not to tamper with evidence or influence witnesses.

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

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:177131

¶2

Court No. - 66

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 38208 of 2023 Applicant :- Pradeep Kumar Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Govind Narayan Tiwari,Ramesh Chandra Dwivedi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Ajay Bhanot,J.

¶5

Learned AGA contends that the police authorities in compliance of the directions issued by this Court in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 46998 of 2020 (Junaid Vs State of U.P. and another) reported at 2021 (6) ADJ 511 and with a view to implement the provisions of POCSO Act, 2012 read with POCSO Rules, 2020, have served the bail application upon the victim/legal guardian as well as upon the CWC.

¶6

By means of the bail application the applicant has prayed to be enlarged on bail in Case Crime No. 236 of 2023 at Police Station- Khalilabad, District- Sant Kabir Nagar under Sections 363, 366, 376, 504, 506 IPC, and Section 3/4 of the POCSO Act. The applicant is in jail since 04.04.2023.

¶7

The bail application of the applicant was rejected by the learned trial court on 31.07.2023.

¶8

The following arguments made by Shri Ramesh Chandra Dwivedi, learned counsel on behalf of the applicant, which could not be satisfactorily refuted by learned AGA

¶9

from the record, entitle the applicant for grant of bail:

¶10

Learned amicus curiae for the applicant contests the minority of the victim as depicted in the prosecution case.

¶11

The victim was wrongly shown as a minor in the F.I.R. only to falsely implicate the applicant under the stringent provisions of the POCSO Act and cause his imprisonment.

¶12

Learned counsel for the applicant contests the age of the victim set out in the prosecution case in light of the judgement of this Court in Monish Vs. State of U.P. and others (Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 55026 of 2021) and on the following grounds:

¶13

(i) There are material contradictions in the age of the victim as recorded in various prosecution documents.

¶14

(ii) The age of the victim was incorrectly got registered in the school records by the victim's parents to give her an advantage in life. The school records disclosing her age as 16 years are unreliable.

¶15

(iii) The victim in her statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. has asserted that she is 21 years of age.

¶16

(iv). The medical report drawn up to determine the age of the victim opines that she is around 17 years of age. The victim is in fact a major.

¶17

The victim and the applicant were intimate.

¶18

The F.I.R. is the result of opposition of the victim's

¶19

family to the said relationship.

¶20

The victim in her statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. has admitted to intimacy with the applicant. She has further asserted that she got married with the applicant at a temple in Gorakhpur. Thereafter they resided as a married couple in Nepal.

¶21

False and aggravated allegations were made by the victim subsequently in her statement under Section 164 CrPC against the applicant at the behest of her parents only to save the failing prosecution case and deflect attention from her own conduct.

¶22

Material contradictions in the FIR, statements under Section 161 CrPC, Section 164 CrPC discredit the prosecution case.

¶23

The victim was present at various public places. She did not resist the applicant nor she raise an alarm. Her conduct shows that she was a consenting party.

¶24

No medical evidence to corroborate commission of rape has been produced by the prosecution.

¶25

Learned counsel for the applicant contends that the applicant does not have any criminal history apart from the instant case.

¶26

The applicant is not a flight risk. The applicant being a law abiding citizen has always cooperated with the investigation and undertakes to cooperate with the court

¶27

proceedings. There is no possibility of his influencing witnesses, tampering with the evidence or reoffending.

¶28

In the light of the preceding discussion and without making any observations on the merits of the case, the bail application is allowed.

¶29

Let the applicant- Pradeep Kumar be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number, on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court below. The following conditions be imposed in the interest of justice:-

¶30

(i) The applicant will not tamper with the evidence or influence any witness during the trial.

¶31

(ii) The applicant will appear before the trial court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted.

¶32

The Court has been informed that the lawyers in districtSant Kabir Nagar are striking work. Liberty of citizens is too sacrosanct and cannot be held to ransom by striking lawyers.

¶33

The District Legal Services Authority (DLSA), Sant Kabir Nagar shall ensure that appropriate legal aid is made available to the applicant for purposes of submitting sureties and completion of other formalities for being set forth at liberty.

¶34

Registry is directed to send a copy of this order to the District Legal Services Authority (DLSA), Sant Kabir

¶35

Nagar for onward communication to the applicant who is in jail, and for assisting the applicant in the manner stated above.

¶36

Order Date :- 12.9.2023 Pravin

¶37

Digitally signed by :- PRAVIN VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Pradeep Kumar v. State of U.P.and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pradeep 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shakir Vs State of U.P.

Amit Kumar Vs State of U.P.

Mohammad Hasan Vs State of U.P.

Karan Singh Vs State of U.P.

Deepa Vs State of U.P.

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