Allowed

Pardeshi Kumar Bind v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC6 Apr 2023BAIL/38930/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court allowed a bail application filed by Pardeshi Kumar Bind in a case involving murder and POCSO offences. The judge found the prosecution case prima facie falsified as CCTV footage placed the victim at home when the applicant emerged from his house, and no motive was attributed to him.

What did the court decide?

The applicant to be released on bail furnishing a personal bond and two sureties with conditions to attend court, not tamper with evidence, and not involve in criminal activity.

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

¶1

Court No. - 75

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 38930 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Pardeshi Kumar Bind Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Ashok Kumar Maurya Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Singh,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned Additional Government Advocate representing the State.

¶6

The instant bail application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. has been filed on behalf of the applicant with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No. 94 of 2022, under Sections 302/34, 376DB, 201 of I.P.C. and 5m, 5l/6 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, Police Station- Kotwali, DistrictBallia, during the pendency of trial.

¶7

As per the prosecution case in brief, the informant Suresh Verma, who is father of the deceased, lodged F.I.R. on 26.02.2022, at about 10:20 hours, against one unknown person, alleging inter-alia that he is living along his family with taking an accommodation on rent, situated at village Rampur Mahaval, near Mansha Baba Temple. On 25.02.2022, his daughter Ananya aged about 6 years was playing outside the house, but she went missing. A hectic search was made but all in vain. On 26.02.2022, at about 6 o'clock in the moring, her dead body was found behind his house and on her face injuries were also found, therefore, he suspects that someone after committing murder of his daughter thrown her dead body behind his house.

¶8

It is argued by learned counsel for the applicant that F.I.R. has been lodged against an unknown person on the basis of suspicion. The applicant is not named in the F.I.R. The complicity of the applicant came into light during investigation on the basis of a CCTV footage, collected by the Investigating OfÏcer. In this regard, it is submitted that as per statement of the father of the deceased, the incident took place on

¶9

25.02.2022, between 2:00-2:30 o'clock in the night and as per description of CCTV footage as recorded in the case diary, deceased left her house on 25.02.2022 along with one Manish at about 1:35 pm, after few minutes, she returned to her house, thereafter, she did not go out up to 12:00 o'clock in the night. So far as applicant is concerned, it is stated that he came out of his house at about 11:32 pm but after a while he returned. On the strength of aforesaid facts, it is submitted that the applicant has been falsely implicated in this case without any credible/admissible evidence against him, therefore, the applicant who is languishing in jail since 28.02.2022 is entitled to be released on bail.

¶10

Per contra, learned A.G.A. for the State opposed the prayer for bail of the applicant but could not dispute the description of CCTV footage, as noted above and recorded in the case diary.

¶11

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and examined the matter in its entirety as well as description of CCTV footage mentioned in the case diary, I find that as per CCTV footage of 25.02.2022, the victim was in her house up to 12:00 o'clock in the night and as per prosecution case itself the applicant came out of his house at about 11:32 pm, but after a while, he returned, therefore, prosecution case as set up on the basis of CCTV footage prima facie get falsified. Motive has also not been attributed to the applicant.

¶12

In view of the above, considering the facts and circumstances of the case as well as keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused and submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that the applicant has made out a fit case for bail. Hence, the bail application is hereby allowed .

¶13

Let the applicant- Pardeshi Kumar Bind , 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 concerned with the following conditions which are

¶14

being imposed in the interest of justice:-

¶15

(i) That the applicant shall cooperate in the expeditious disposal of the trial and shall regularly attend the court unless inevitable.

¶16

(ii) That the applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any 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 to any police ofÏcer or tamper with the evidence.

¶17

(iii) That after his release, the applicant shall not involve in any criminal activity.

¶18

(iv) The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be verified by court concerned before the release of the applicant on bail.

¶19

In case of breach of any of the conditions mentioned above, court concerned will be at liberty to cancel the bail of the applicant.

¶20

Order Date :- 6.4.2023 Kashifa

¶21

Digitally signed by :- KASHIFA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Pardeshi Kumar Bind v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pardeshi Kumar Bind 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

Bablu Rajbhar @ Bablu Vs State of U.P and 3 Others

Narendra Pasi Vs State of U.P.

Manoj Vs State of U.P.

Jitendra @ Jeetu Vs State of U.P.

Rajesh Sonkar Vs State of U.P.

Laxman Verma Vs State of U.P.