Satendra Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lucknow and Others

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:19904 Court No. - 14

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 1144 of 2024

Applicant :- Satendra Kumar Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lucknow And Others Counsel for Applicant :- Jayveer Rajput Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Vijay Kumar

¶4

Hon'ble Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and learned counsel for the complainant as well as perused the record.

¶6

The present bail application has been filed by accused-applicant seeking bail in F.I.R. No.0116 of 2023 under Sections 363, 366, 376 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 POCSO Act, 2012, Police Station Sandi, District Hardoi.

¶7

It is alleged in the First Information Report that minor daughter of the informant aged about 15 years went to ease out who did not return even after enough time has passed. The complainant searched her and then came to know that she has been enticed away by the applicant Satendra Kumar.

¶8

Learned counsel for applicant submits that three real brothers have been falsely implicated by making concocted story. The victim is a consenting parity. She on her own accord went

¶9

with the applicant to Delhi and marry with him. While giving statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. the victim has not made any allegation of rape. She has stated that she on her own accord went away with the applicant, thus, no offence under Section 363, 366 Indian Penal Code is made out. There is no corroborative medical injury in the medico legal examination of the victim.

¶10

Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that radiological age of the victim is 15 years. He submits that a margin of two years on either side can be given as has been held by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in a case reported in (1982) 2 Supreme Court Cases 538, Jaya Mala Vs. Home Secretary, Government of Jammu & Kashmir and Others. The applicant has no criminal history. Learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for the complainant have opposed the bail prayer, however, could not dispute the aforesaid facts.

¶11

On due consideration to the submissions advanced, perusal of the record as also the facts that the applicant is languishing in jail since 14.4.2023, charge-sheet has been filed, the applicant has no criminal history, in the statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. no allegation of rape has been leveled by the victim against the applicant couple with the fact that there is lack of corroborative evidence in support of the prosecution case and without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, I find it to be a fit case for enlarging the applicant on bail.

¶12

Accordingly, the bail application is allowed. Let the applicant Satendra Kumar be released on bail in aforesaid case crime number subject to his furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court concerned with the following conditions:

¶13

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

¶14

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

¶15

(iii) 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 ofÏcer or tamper with the evidence.

¶16

(iv) 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.

¶17

(v) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufÏcient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229-A of the

¶18

Indian Penal Code.

¶19

(vi) 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.

¶20

Order Date :- 5.3.2024

¶21

Madhu

¶22

Digitally signed by :- MADHU KUMARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Satendra Kumar v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lucknow and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Satendra Kumar v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lucknow and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Adesh Pathak vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and 2 Others

Smt. Shiva Shukla vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Home U.P. Lko. and 2 Others

Nitesh Singh (According to Aadhar Card Nitesh Kumar Singh) vs State of U.P Thru. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Manoj Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Others

Taj Mohammad Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Mohd. Saddam @ Saddam Ahmad Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Deptt. Home Lko.