Allowed

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

Allahabad HC23 Jan 2023BAIL/53841/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single Judge of Allahabad High Court granted bail to Surendra Kumar in a trial case involving IPC 3/4 POCSO allegations. Bail granted on larger mandate of Article 21 due to jail overcrowding, despite opposition from the State citing risk of misuse.

What did the court decide?

Accused released on bail on furnishing personal bond and two sureties with strict conditions regarding evidence tampering, adjournments, and court appearance.

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

¶1

Court No. - 73

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 53841 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Surendra Kumar Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Nanhe Lal Tripathi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Siddharth,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicant as well as the learned AGA for the State and perused the material placed on record.

¶6

The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant, Surendra Kumar, with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No. 0035 of 2022, under Sections 363, 366, 376 IPC and 3/4 POCSO Act, Police Station Saujana, District- Lalitpur, during pendency of trial.

¶7

There is allegation of enticement of a minor girl with intention to marry and also allegation of rape and committing the offence under Section 3/4 POCSO Act against the applicant.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that as per the ossification test report, the age of the victim is 16 years. However, given margin of two years on higher side, she can be considered to be major. It is a case of false implication. The incident took place on 9.6.2022 and the FIR was lodged on 29.6.2022. From the statement of the victim 164 Cr.P.C., she appears to be consenting party. She stated that she met with the applicant in a marriage party and went with the applicant on motorcycle and lived with him for 15 days. She has admitted marriage with the applicant in temple. The applicant has been falsely implicated in this case. He has no criminal history to his credit and is languishing in jail since 15.7.2022. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶9

Per contra learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail of the applicant by contending that the innocence of the applicant cannot be adjudged at pre trial stage, therefore, he does not deserves any indulgence. In case the applicant is released on bail he will again indulge in similar activities and will misuse the liberty of bail.

¶10

Having considered the submissions of the parties noted above, 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. & Another, passed in S.L.P.(Crl.) No. 5191 of 2021, judgement dated 11.7.2022 and considering 5-6 times overcrowding in jails over and above their capacity by under trials and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, let the applicant involved in the aforesaid crime 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 with the following conditions that :-

¶11

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

¶12

(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.

¶13

(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.

¶14

(iv) In case the applicant misuse the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence, proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued and the applicants fail 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.

¶15

(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.

¶16

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

¶17

Identity and residence proof of the applicant and sureties be verified by the court concerned before the bonds are accepted.

¶18

Order Date :- 23.1.2023 Ruchi Agrahari

¶19

Digitally signed by :- RUCHI AGRAHARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Surendra 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rohan Vs State of U.P.

Smt. Urmila Devi Vs State of U.P.

Pradyumn Singh Vs State of Up through Sec. Home and 3 Others

Gulab Pal Vs State of U.P.

Kale @ Sahab Singh Vs State of U.P.

Sudama @ Anuruddha Singh Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others