Sachin Kumar v. State of U.P. and 3 Others
Case brief
What is this about?
Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application regarding offenses under IPC and POCSO. The court examined the victim's statements, age, and gravity of charges. It rejected the bail plea, finding contradicting statements are for trial, consent of minor is invalid, and no ground exists to discharge the applicant pending trial.
What did the court decide?
Bail application is rejected. Application is confined to bail and shall not affect merit of trial.
What the court decided
Court No. - 75
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 47154 of 2022
Applicant :- Sachin Kumar Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Shri Ram Yadav,Sanjay Kumar Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Dhirendra Kumar Verma
Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Singh,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned Additional Government Advocate representing the State. Mr. Dhirendra Kumar Verma, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the informant is not present.
By means of this application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C., applicant-Sachin Kumar, who is involved in Case Crime No. 214 of 2022, under Sections 363, 366, 376 IPC and Section 3/4 POCSO Act, Police Station Eka, District Firozabad, seeks enlargement on bail during the pendency of trial.
As per prosecution case in brief, informant who is father of the victim lodged a first information report on 22.07.2022 for the offence under Sections 363, 366 I.P.C. against unknown person alleging inter-alia that his minor daughter, whose date of birth is 05.01.2006, is missing since 19.07.2022 at about 10:00 pm in the night. He searched a lot for his daughter, but could not find her. He suspects that she has been enticed away by unknown person.
The victim was recovered on 25.07.2022 and her statement under Section 161Cr.P.C. was recorded in which she has stated inter-alia that on 19.07.2022 at about 11:00 pm she went to "Mata temple" on Sachin's call. Vikas met her there and brought her to Ekka, thereafter Neta met her who took her to Basundhara, where Sachin met her, from there both went to Delhi and solemnized marriage. she also stated that the applicant Sachin persuaded that he will take her with him, she did not want to go with Sachin but she went with him because of being annoyed with her family members. When statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C.of victim was recorded, she stated inter-alia that Neta,Vikas and Sachin took her
Issues for consideration
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the applicant is entitled to bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. given the heinous nature of the offence involving a minor.
Whether inconsistencies in the victim's statements entitle the applicant to presumption of false implication at the bail stage.
Whether the consent of the applicant is a valid defense given the victim's age and the nature of alleged offenses.
Parties & counsel
- applicant
Sachin Kumar
- respondent
State Of U.P.
Coram
Sanjay Kumar Singh
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
- Court
- Allahabad HC
- Decided on
- · April
- Registered
- Case no.
- BAIL/47154/2022
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court