Allowed

Mukesh Kumar Verma v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin.Secy. Home Deptt. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC22 Feb 2024/1710/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Judicature at Allahabad allowed the bail application filed by Mukesh Kumar Verma. The court held that the case is fit for bail due to the prosecutrix turning hostile, her major age at the time, and the lack of corroborative material, despite serious non-bailable charges involving POCSO.

What did the court decide?

Release on bail subject to a personal bond and two sureties, with conditions against tampering, intimidating witnesses, and ensuring court attendance.

Mukesh Kumar Verma Vs State of U.P. Thru… — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:15904

¶2

Court No. - 14

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 1710 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Mukesh Kumar Verma Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin.Secy. Home Deptt. And 3 Others

¶5

Counsel for Applicant :- Salil Tripathi,Sudhir Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶6

Hon'ble Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.

¶7

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

¶8

Notices have been served to the complainant however, none appears.

¶9

The present bail application has been filed by accused-applicant seeking bail in Case Crime No.68 of 2022, under Sections 363, 366, 376 I.P.C. and Sections 3/4 POCSO Act, P.S. Fatehpur, District Barabanki.

¶10

It is alleged in the prosecution case that on 14.02.2022 at about 05:00 am when the family members of the informant wake up, they saw that minor daughter of the informant aged about 16 years is not at home. She was searched from the sources thereafter, they came to know that she has been enticed away by the applicant-Mukesh Kumar Verma, who is married.

¶11

Learned counsel for applicant submits that victim in her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. has not supported the prosecution case while being examined before the trial court, victim has not supported the prosecution case again. She has been declared hostile. As per the statement of the victim under Section 164 Cr.P.C. as well as before the court, she is major.

¶12

There is no corroborative material such as medical etc. in support of the prosecution case. Applicant has no criminal history. He is in jail since 17.07.2022.

¶13

Learned A.G.A. has opposed the bail prayer.

¶14

On due consideration to the submissions advanced, perusal of the record as also the fact that the applicant is languishing in jail since 17.07.2022 having no criminal history as also the fact that prosecutrix has turned hostile, without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, I find it to be a fit case for enlarging the applicant on bail.

¶15

Accordingly, the bail application is allowed .

¶16

Let the applicant Mukesh Kumar Verma 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:

¶17

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

¶18

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

¶19

(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 officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶20

(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.

¶21

(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 sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶22

(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.

¶23

Order Date :- 22.2.2024 Saurabh Yadav/-

¶24

Digitally signed by :- SAURABH YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Mukesh Kumar Verma v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin.Secy. Home Deptt. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mukesh Kumar Verma v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin.Secy. Home Deptt. 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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

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

Sandeep Sahu Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Nirmal Das @ Govind Vs State of U.P. Thru Prin.Secy. Home Lko and Ors.

Smt. Gudiya Devi Vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Secy. Home, Civil Sectt, Lko.

Ramprasad Alias Balla Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Govt. U.P. Lko.

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