Allowed

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

Allahabad HC17 Feb 2023BAIL/6294/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Allowed bail to the applicant charged with offences under IPC and POCSO Act. The court noted discrepancies in the victim's age and medical evidence without expressing an opinion on the merits of the case.

What did the court decide?

Release on bail with a personal bond and two heavy sureties, subject to standard conditions including non-interference with witnesses and appearance before the trial court.

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

¶1

Court No. - 83

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 6294 of 2023

¶3

Applicant :- Pramod Kumar Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Bhuvnesh Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A., Nagendra Pratap Singh

¶4

Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.

¶5

List has been revised.

¶6

Heard Sri Bhuvnesh Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Nagendra Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the informant as well as learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶7

Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 555 of 2022, under Sections 363, 376 I.P.C. and 3/4 POCSO Act, Police Station Haldaur, District Bijnor, during the pendency of trial.

¶8

As per prosecution story, the applicant is stated to have enticed away the minor daughter of the informant on 24.12.2022 at about 9.30 am when she was going to school, and is stated to have taken her to hotel and sexually assaulted her. The victim was found terrified in the house and after having observed so, the father is stated to have enquired her upon which she had narrated the said facts to him, as such, the FIR was lodged the same day on 8.16 pm.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that the applicant is absolutely innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case with a view to cause unnecessary harassment and to victimize him. Learned counsel has further stated that the medical examination report does not corroborate the prosecution story, as no injury on internal or external part of the body has been found by the doctor. Learned counsel has further stated that as per the ossification test report, the age of the victim has been found to be 19 years, although in the FIR, it has been narrated to be 12.7.2006. Learned counsel has placed much reliance on the settled case law of the Apex Court in Sushil Kumar vs. Rakesh Kumar, (2003) 8 SCC 673, wherein it has been stated that it is more often

¶10

in the Indian Society that person shows the age of their wards much below than their actual age. Learned counsel has stated that the perusal of the statement of the victim recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. also does not indicate the use of force as both the parties are stated to have disrobed themselves. Learned counsel has next stated that the victim has not raised any alarm either at the hotel or at the time of entering the room. The said fact also falsifies the prosecution story.

¶11

Several other submissions have been made on behalf of the applicant to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against him. The circumstances which, as per counsel, led to the false implication of the applicant have also been touched upon at length. There is no criminal history of the applicant. The applicant is languishing in jail since 25.12.2022. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶12

Per contra, learned A.G.A. and learned counsel for the informant have vehemently opposed the bail application on the ground that despite being major, nobody has the right to ravish her without her consent. Learned counsel has stated that there is no consent on the part of the victim.

¶13

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, the evidence on record, pending trial and considering the complicity of accused, severity of punishment and taking into consideration the intricacies of the evidence adduced, at this stage, without 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 .

¶14

Let the applicant- Pramod Kumar involved in aforementioned case crime number be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two heavy sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions.

¶15

i. The applicant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.

¶16

ii. The applicant will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness.

¶17

iii. The applicant will appear before the trial court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted.

¶18

iv. The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal activity or commission of any crime after being released on bail.

¶19

v. 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.

¶20

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the prosecution shall be at liberty to move bail cancellation application before this Court.

¶21

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

¶22

It is made clear that observations made in granting bail to the applicant shall not in any way affect the learned trial Judge in forming his independent opinion on the testimony of the witnesses.

¶23

Order Date :- 17.2.2023 Shalini

¶24

Digitally signed by :- SHALINI JAISWAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pramod 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

Vijay Paswan Vs State of U.P.

Annu Widow Vs State of U.P.

Prabal Agnihotri Vs State of U.P.

Udal Bind @ Rudal Bind @ Vikas Bind Vs State of U.P.

Sovendra Singh Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Ramu Sonkar Vs State of U.P.