Allowed

Anil Kumar v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC28 Oct 2023BAIL/43414/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C., the High Court of Allahabad allowed the petitioner to be released on bail. The Court noted an unexplained delay in the FIR and evidence suggesting the major complainant willingly accompanied the applicant. No tampering risk was perceived, leading to the grant of bail with strict conditions.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail by furnishing personal bond and two sureties subject to conditions regarding attendance and conduct.

Anil Kumar Vs State of U.P. — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:205526

¶2

Court No. - 69

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 43414 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Anil Kumar Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Pankaj Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Samit Gopal,J.

¶6

Heard Sri Pankaj, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Ajay Singh, learned A.G.A.-I for the State and perused the material on record.

¶7

This bail application under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the applicant- Anil Kumar , seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No. 824 of 2022, under Sections 366 & 376 I.P.C., Police Station Robertsganj, District Sonbhadra.

¶8

The first information report of the present matter was lodged on 22.10.2022 by Nirmala under Sections 363, 366 I.P.C. against the applicant alleging therein that her daughter aged about 22 years has gone missing. She was searched a lot but could not be traced. She discussed it in the village after which her neighbours told her that her neighbour Anil Kumar has enticed her daughter away.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicant argued that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is argued that the victim as per the first information report itself is a major girl. It is argued that subsequently the victim was recovered on 06.01.2023 which is after about 03 months of her going missing. It is further argued that the first information report has been lodged after about 01 month & 02 days from the date of the victim going missing for which there is no plausible explanation. It is next argued that the victim in her statements recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and under Section 164 Cr.P.C. has stated that the applicant told her to accompany him and then went to Rajasthan where he stated that he would keep her happy and they stayed in a rented accommodation where physical relationship was established. It is argued that the present case is a case of consent. The victim while going with the applicant and staying with him for 03 months did not raise any objection or resist the same. The applicant has no criminal

¶10

history as stated in para 27 of the affidavit and is in jail since 06.01.2023.

¶11

Per contra , learned counsel for the State opposed the prayer for bail.

¶12

After having heard learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, it is evident that the first information report has been lodged after an unexplained delay of about 01 month & 02 days. The victim as per the first information report itself is a major girl. She states of going with the applicant out of her own sweet-will and staying with him for 03 months in a rented accommodation. No resistance whatsoever has been made by her or any effort was made by her to run away.

¶13

Looking to the facts and circumstances of this case, the nature of evidence and also the absence of any convincing material to indicate the possibility of tampering with the evidence, this Court is of the view that the applicant may be enlarged on bail.

¶14

Let the applicant- Anil 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 concerned with the following conditions which are being imposed in the interest of justice:-

¶15

i) The applicant will not tamper with prosecution evidence and will not harm or harass the victim/complainant in any manner whatsoever.

¶16

ii) The applicant will abide the orders of court, will attend the court on every date and will not delay the disposal of trial in any manner whatsoever.

¶17

(iii) 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

(iv) The applicant will not misuse the liberty of bail in any manner whatsoever. 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 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.

¶19

(v) 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 sufficient 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 and the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229A IPC.

¶20

(vi) The trial court may make all possible efforts/endeavour and try to conclude the trial expeditiously after the release of the applicant.

¶21

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

¶22

The bail application is allowed .

¶23

Order Date :- 28.10.2023 AS Rathore

¶24

(Samit Gopal,J.)

¶25

Digitally signed by :- ABHISHEK SINGH RATHOR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Anil Kumar v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anil 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

Brahmpal Vs State of U.P.

Manish Devi Vs State of U.P.

Kushagra Singh Vs State of U.P. .and Another

Zafar Usmani Vs State of U.P.

Vijay Kumar and Another Vs State of U.P.

Bhola Vs State of U.P.