Sandeep Kashyap Vs State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Civil Secrt. Lko. and 3 Others

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:14371

Court No. - 12

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 1584 of 2024

Applicant :- Sandeep Kashyap Opposite Party :- State Of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Civil Secrt. Lko. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Pradeep Kumar Tripathi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J.

¶6

1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned A.G.A. and perused the record. Despite service of notice, no one appeared on behalf of the complainant.

¶7

2 . The applicant seeks enlargement on bail in FIR No.379 of 2022, under Section 376 IPC and Section 3/4 of POCSO Act, Police Station Maholi, District Sitapur.

¶8

3 . This is the second bail application. The first bail application was rejected by this Court vide order dated 24.07.2023 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.11335 of 2022.

¶9

4 . While arguing the second bail application, the contention of the Counsel for the applicant is that the victim has already been examined as is evident from Annexure-12 of the second bail application. It is argued that the entire incident is a squeal to the NCR registered earlier. He further argues that the FIR itself was registered after about 7 days of the alleged incident as is evident from the FIR. It is further argued that the applicant is in custody since 15.07.2022 and has no criminal antecedents.

¶10

5. Learned A.G.A. vehemently opposed the bail prayer by arguing that after rejection of the first bail application, the victim had deposed against the applicant as is evident from the statement, which is on record and considering the deposition, the bail application should be rejected.

¶11

6. The tentative age of the victim, as per the high school marksheet is around 17 years. As per the charge-sheet as many as 19 witnesses have to be examined and only two witnesses have been examined so far. Although in terms of the mandate of Section 35(2) of the POCSO Act, it is incumbent that the trial be concluded within a year from the date of taking cognizance of the offence, however, there is no likelihood of the trial being

¶12

concluded in near future and considering the fact that out of 24 proposed witnesses, only two witnesses have been examined so far and the fact that the applicant has no criminal antecedents and is in custody since 15.07.2022 and there is nothing on record to demonstrate that the applicant if enlarged on bail, can be a flight risk or can adversely affect the trial and without expressing any opinion on merit, I am of the view that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed .

¶13

7. Let the applicant Sandeep Kashyap be released on bail in the aforesaid first information report on his furnishing personal bonds and two reliable sureties of Rs.20,000/- each to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:

¶14

(a) The applicant shall execute a bond to undertake to attend the hearings;

¶15

(b) The applicant shall not commit any offence similar to the offence of which he is accused or suspected of the commission; and

¶16

(c) 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.

¶17

Order Date :- 19.2.2024 akverma

¶18

Digitally signed by :- ASHOK KUMAR VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Sandeep Kashyap v. State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Civil Secrt. Lko. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sandeep Kashyap v. State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Civil Secrt. Lko. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Islam @ Munna Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lucknow

Md. Azam Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Sectt., Lko.

Pintu Vs State of U.P Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Deptt. Govt. Civil Secrt. Lko. and 3 Others

Neta Prasad Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Deshraj Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Vijay Agarwal @ Golu @ Vijay Kaliya Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.