Allowed

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

Allahabad HC28 Oct 2023BAIL/45447/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a bail application concerning charges under POCSO and IPC, the court considered allegations of age misrepresentation and victim consent. Balancing factors like jail overcrowding and trial delay, the High Court granted bail subject to strict conditions regarding court attendance and non-tampering with evidence.

What did the court decide?

Release on bail by furnishing personal bond and two sureties each, subject to strict conditions of court attendance and no tampering with evidence or witnesses.

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

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:206102

¶2

Court No. - 64

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 45447 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Neeraj Kumar Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Karunesh Pratap Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Siddharth,J.

¶6

Heard Shri Karunesh Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A for the State.

¶7

Sri Vivekanand Yadav, learned Counsel has filed Vakalatnama on behalf of the inforrmant today is taken on record.

¶8

There is allegation against the applicant that intimation of minor girl commission of crime offence under Section 5/6 POCSO Act.

¶9

Counsel for the applicant submits that victim as per statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. is aged about 17 years and according to test ossification report, she has also been found to be aged about 17 years. Counsel for the applicant submits that given margin of one year on higher side she can be considered to be major. He has further submitted that from the statement of victim under Section 164 Cr.P.C., she is clearly a consenting party. The applicant is in jail since 27.06.2023 and has no criminal history to his credit.

¶10

On the other hand learned A.G.A has opposed the prayer for bail.

¶11

Keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused; submissions of the learned counsel for the parties noted above; finding force in the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant; keeping view the uncertainty regarding conclusion of trial; one sided investigation by police, ignoring the case of accused side; applicant being under-trial having fundamental right to speedy trial; larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India; considering the dictum of Apex Court in the case of Satendra Kumar Antil vs. C.B.I., passed in S.L.P (Crl.) No. 5191 of 2021 ; considering 5-6 times overcrowding in jails over and above their capacity by the under trials and without

¶12

expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed.

¶13

Let the applicant, Neeraj Kumar, involved in Case Crime No.481 of 2023, under Sections- 363, 366, 376 IPC and 5/6 POCSO Act, Police Station- Cantt , District- Gorakhpur, be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions. Further, before issuing the release order, the sureties be verified.

¶14

(i) The applicant shall not tamper with the evidence or threaten the witnesses.

¶15

(ii) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates 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.

¶16

(iii) The applicant shall remain present before the Trial Court on each date fixed, either personally or as directed by the Court. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the Trial Court may proceed against him under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶17

(iv) 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. is issued and the 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 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶18

(v) The applicant shall remain present in person before the Trial Court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) 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.

¶19

In case, of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.

¶20

Identity and residence proof of the applicant and sureties be

¶21

verified by the court concerned before the bonds are accepted.

¶22

Order Date :- 28.10.2023 A.N. Mishra

¶23

Digitally signed by :- AMARNATH MISHRA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Neeraj 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

Narendra and Another Vs State of U.P.

Kusum Devi and Another Vs State of U.P.

Aakil Vs State of U.P.

Ravi Yadav Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Smt. Kheerpati Vs State of U.P.

Brijesh @ Suraj Vs State of U.P.