Allowed

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

Allahabad HC27 Jul 2023BAIL/4519/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the bail application of an applicant accused of offences under Section 377 IPC and POCSO Act. Despite opposition, the court granted bail due to the victim's statement contradictions, lack of medical corroboration, and the applicant's clean record, directing release on personal and surety bonds.

What did the court decide?

The applicant Suraj Kumar is released on bail on personal bonds and two sureties of Rs. 25,000 each subject to standard bail conditions.

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

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:150751

¶2

Court No. - 75

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 4519 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Suraj Kumar Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Surya Prakash Dubey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J.

¶6

Rejoinder affidavit filed today is taken on record.

¶7

Order on Bail

¶8

1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned A.G.A. and perused the record.

¶9

2 . The FIR in question was lodged alleging a commission of an offence under Section 377 IPC on the victim aged about nine years.

¶10

3 . Counsel for the applicant argues that there are contradictions in between the statement of the victim recorded under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. It is argued that the medical report on record does not corroborate the prosecution story. Counsel for the applicant also places reliance on the statement of the doctor, who was of the opinion that the informant had refused to admit the child for treatment. The applicant is in custody since 10.11.2022 and has no criminal history. The Counsel for the applicant also argues that the family of the victim and the applicant are tenants in the same building which is also reflected from the statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C.

¶11

4. Learned A.G.A. vehemently opposed the bail prayer.

¶12

5. Considering the fact that the statements have already been

¶13

recorded, prima facie medical report does not corroborate the prosecution story, however, sufficiency of evidence shall be seen at the time of trial, applicant is in custody since 10.11.2022 and has no criminal history and there is nothing on record to demonstrate that the applicant if enlarged on bail, would in any way adversely affect the trial and without expressing any opinion on merit, I am of the view that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail.

¶14

6. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed .

¶15

7. Let the applicant Suraj Kumar be released on bail in FIR/ Case Crime No. 622 of 2022, under Sections 377 IPC and 3/4 POCSO Act, P.S. Ramgarh Taal, District Gorakhpur, on his furnishing personal bonds and two reliable sureties of Rs. 25,000/- each to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:

¶16

(a) The applicant shall execute a bond to undertake to attend the hearings;

¶17

(b) The applicant shall not commit any offence similar to the offence of which he is accused or suspected of the commission; and

¶18

(c) 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 officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶19

Order Date :- 27.7.2023 S.A.

¶20

Digitally signed by :- SALMAN AHMAD High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Suraj 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sudhir Kumar @ Satish Vs State of U.P.

Nadeem Vs State of U.P.

Vinod Jatt Vs State of U.P.

Sanjay Yadav Vs State of U.P.

Sarfaraz Vs State of U.P.

Bhuri @ Ashraf Vs State of U.P.