Allowed

Saurabh Alias Sajan Kumar v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko. and Others

Allahabad HC20 Feb 2024/221/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 221 of 2024, this court allowed bail for the applicant accused of kidnapping and sexual offenses. The court noted the victim's statement indicated a consensual relationship and found the case fit for bail discharge.

What did the court decide?

Release of applicant Saurabh alias Sajan Kumar on bail on furnishing personal bond and two reliable sureties in like amount.

Saurabh Alias Sajan Kumar Vs State of U.P… — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:15314

¶2

Court No. - 14

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 221 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Saurabh Alias Sajan Kumar Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko. And Others Counsel for Applicant :- Pankaj Prasoon,Dhiraj Chaurasiya,Rakesh Kumar Verma

¶5

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

Counter Affidavit filed by learned A.G.A. is taken on record.

¶9

The present bail application has been filed by accusedapplicant seeking bail in Case Crime No.261 of 2023 under Section 363, 366, 376 Indian Penal Code and Section 3/4 POCSO Act, Police Station Chaanda, District Sultanpur.

¶10

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the victim in her statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. has stated that she on her own accord went to Delhi to meet the applicant and from Delhi she called the applicant. She stated that Saurabh, the applicant came there and took her to Ludhiana. They stayed there for about two months. They had married in Sultanpur court on 18.8.2023. More or less same statement has been given by the victim except improvement that they stayed in Ludhiana for three months. It has been categorically stated by the victim that rape has been committed by the applicant. The statement of the victim under Section 161 Cr.P.C. shows that she is a consenting party . In the radiological

¶11

examination she has been found to be 15 years of age. In support of his arguments 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.

¶12

Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that the applicant is in jail since 15.9.2023.

¶13

Learned A.G.A. has opposed the bail prayer, however, could not dispute the aforesaid facts.

¶14

On due consideration to the submissions advanced, perusal of the record as also the facts that the applicant is languishing in jail since 15.9.2023, statement of the prosecutrix under Section 161 Cr.P.C. shows that she is a consenting party and 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. Let the applicant Saurabh alias Sajan 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:

¶16

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

¶17

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

¶18

(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.

¶19

(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.

¶20

(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.

¶21

(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.

¶22

Order Date :- 20.2.2024 Madhu

¶23

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

Saurabh Alias Sajan Kumar v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko. and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Saurabh Alias Sajan Kumar v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko. and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Imamul Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and 3 Others

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

Sunil Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Civil Sectt. Lko

Alok Kumar Tripathi Vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Addl. Chief Secy. Dept. of Home, Lko

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

Suraj Gupta Vs the State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt, Govt. of U.P. Civil Secrtt. Lko. and Others