Allowed

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

Allahabad HC5 May 2023BAIL/55418/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Allahabad High Court considered a bail application in a case involving child sexual offences and abduction. The court noted contradictions in the victim's statements and the applicant's long detention, granting bail on personal bond with sureties and standard conditions against evidence tampering.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail furnishing a personal bond and two sureties in like amounts to the satisfaction of the court concerned.

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

¶1

Court No. - 74

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 55418 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Anuj Kumar Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Rajeev Kumar Saxena Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Sameer Jain,J.

¶5

As per office report dated 29.4.2023, notice has been served to the informant.

¶6

Dr. S.B.Maurya, learned AGA-I, for the State, also apprised the Court that notice has been served to the informant of the case on 29.11.2022.

¶7

Despite service of notice, none appeared on behalf of the informant.

¶8

Heard Sri Rajeev Kumar Saxena, learned counsel for the applicant and Dr.S.B.Maurya, learned AGA-I, for the State.

¶9

The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant with the prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No.249 of 2021, under Sections 363, 366 and 376 IPC, Section 3/4 POCSO Act and Section 3(2) (v) SC/ST Act, Police Station Phaphund, District Auraiya during pendency of the trial.

¶10

FIR of the present case was lodged against the applicant and six others under Sections 363 and 366 IPC and according to the FIR applicant and other co-accused persons on 15.7.2021 enticed away the minor daughter of the informant aged about 14 years.

¶11

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that entire allegation against the applicant is totally false and baseless and

¶12

applicant neither enticed nor abducted the victim. He further submits that although victim in her statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. stated that applicant enticed her away but categorically stated that he did not commit rape with her but when her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. was recorded then she stated that applicant and co-accused Kuldeep enticed her away and committed rape with her and this fact clearly suggests that on the instigation of the informant victim started making allegation of rape against the applicant and therefore, her testimony cannot be relied.

¶13

He further submits that victim in her statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. only made allegation of instigation against the applicant but in her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. she introduced one another co-accused Kuldeep and this fact further suggests that victim is not a reliable witness.

¶14

He further submits that applicant is not having any previous criminal history and he is in jail in the present matter since 8.8.2021, i.e., for the last more than one and half years.

¶15

Per contra, learned AGA opposed the prayer for bail and submits that victim is a minor girl aged about 15 years and this fact is evident from her educational certificates too but could not dispute the fact that there are major contradictions in her both the statements under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. and applicant in the present matter is in jail for the last about more than one and half years.

¶16

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case.

¶17

Although from the record it reflects that victim is a minor girl aged about 15 years and she also made allegation of rape

¶18

against the applicant and co-accused Kuldeep in her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. but in her statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. which was recorded earlier she did not make any allegation of rape and only stated that applicant enticed her away. Further, applicant in the present matter is in jail since 8.8.2021, i.e., for the last about more than one and half years.

¶19

Therefore, from the discussions made above, in my view, applicant is entitled to be released on bail.

¶20

Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the instant bail application is allowed.

¶21

Let the applicant- Anuj Kumar be released on bail in the aforesaid case on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:-

¶22

(i) The applicant shall appear before the trial court on the dates fixed, unless his personal presence is exempted.

¶23

(ii) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly, make 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 any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶24

(iii) The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal and antisocial activity.

¶25

In case of breach of any of the above condition, the prosecution will be at liberty to move an application before this Court for cancellation of the bail of the applicant.

¶26

It is clarified that the observations made herein are limited to the facts brought in by the parties pertaining to the

¶27

disposal of bail application and the said observations shall have no bearing on the merits of the case during trial.

¶28

Order Date :- 5.5.2023 SKM

¶29

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

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anuj 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

Vinod Kumar Vs State of U.P.

Seetu @ Amit Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Tausif Ali Vs State of U.P.

Sunil Rajbhar Vs State of U.P.

Shokindra @ kala Vs State of U.P. though it Principal Secretary (Home)

Rajesh Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others