Allowed

Ajay Kumar v. State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Home, Lko.

Allahabad HC2 Jul 2024/1948/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a bail application concerning allegations of sexual harassment and offences under IPC, the court noted medical reports contradicted specific insertion allegations. Considering the victim's age, lack of medical evidence for serious charges, and applicant's first-time offense, the application was allowed with conditions.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail in Crime No.142 of 2023 under sections 323, 504, 506, 354-Ka, 354-Kha, 376-D IPC by executing a bond and providing two sureties of Rs. 20,000 each.

Ajay Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy… — Cheating and Forgery | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:44967

¶2

Court No. - 12

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 1948 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Ajay Kumar Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Home, Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Ashok Kumar Yadava,Karm Veer Yadav,Rakesh Singh

¶5

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Shivendra Rao

¶6

Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J.

¶7

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

¶8

In terms of the F.I.R. initially filed under Section 323, 354-A and B I.P.C., it was alleged that on 21.5.2023, two accused including the applicant misbehaved with the informant and when she shouted, her sister came and both of them ran away. Subsequently, the entire family had beaten them up and their clothes were also torn.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicant argued that in the statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C., the allegations were levelled by the victim and she also stated that the finger was inserted in her private part. A similar statement was also given in her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., however before the medical authorities, no such statement was given. The medical on record indicates that the hymen was intact and no fresh injury was seen over the private part of the victim. As per the medical, the age of the victim is 23 years. The applicant who has no criminal history and is languishing in jail since 10.8.2023, may be enlarged on bail.

¶10

Learned A.G.A. also opposed the prayer for bail.

¶11

Considering the fact that the tentative age of the victim is around 23 years and the medical report of the victim does not support the allegations of insertion of finger in the private part of the victim, coupled with the fact that the other offences are punishable for a term less than seven years, the applicant has no criminal history and is languishing in jail since 10.8.2023; and without

¶12

expressing any opinion on merit, I am of the view that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail.

¶13

Accordingly, the bail application is allowed.

¶14

Let the applicant Ajay Kumar be released on bail in FIR/ Case Crime No.142 of 2023, under Sections 323, 504, 506, 354-Ka, 354-Kha, 376-D I.P.C., Police Station Leelapur, District Pratapgarh 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 :-

¶15

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

¶16

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

¶17

(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 ofÏcer or tamper with the evidence.

¶18

Order Date :- 2.7.2024/Shukla

¶19

Digitally signed by :- ASHUTOSH KUMAR SHUKLA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Ajay Kumar v. State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Home, Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ajay Kumar v. State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Home, Lko.

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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Dinesh Kumar Gautam Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Deptt.

Chhotkann (Major B.C.) Vs State of U.P. Thru Prin.Secy. Home Lucknow and Anothers

Sumit Yadav Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 3 Others

Babu Ram Nishad Vs State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home Lko.

Sandeep Kumar vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Others

Raj Kumar @ Raju vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home Civil Secrt. Lko.