Allowed

Suraj Kumar v. State of U.P. Thru.Secy. Home and 3 Others

Allahabad HC22 Jan 2024/2677/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application wherein the applicant sought enlargement in cases involving rape and offences under POCSO. The High Court allowed the bail application after noting the victim's contradictory statement during trial and the applicant's lack of criminal antecedents.

What did the court decide?

The applicant Suraj Kumar is released on bail upon furnishing personal bonds and two reliable sureties of the like amount each.

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

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:6097

¶2

Court No. - 12

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 2677 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Suraj Kumar Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru.Secy. Home And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Anil Kumar Awasthi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Ansuiya Rajput,Ravi Pratap Singh

¶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.628 of 2022, under Sections 376, 323, 506 IPC and Section 3/4 of POCSO Act, Police Station Gurubakshganj, District Raebareli.

¶8

3 . In terms of the FIR lodged through an application under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C., it was alleged that the daughter of the informant aged about 17 years was enticed away by the applicant and wrong was committed on her. In the statement under Section 164 of Cr.P.C., initially the victim supported the prosecution, however, during trial, in her statement, she did not support the prosecution story and specifically stated that nothing wrong was committed to her. The tentative age of the victim in terms of the medical report is 18 years.

¶9

4. Learned A.G.A. vehemently opposed the bail prayer.

¶10

5. Considering the statement recorded during trial filed as Annexure-RA-2 to the rejoinder affidavit coupled with the fact that the applicant has no criminal antecedents and is in custody since 21.11.2022, I am of the view that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed .

¶11

6. Let the applicant Suraj Kumar be released on bail in the aforesaid first information report on his furnishing personal bonds and two reliable sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:

¶12

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

¶13

hearings;

¶14

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

¶15

(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.

¶16

Order Date :- 22.1.2024 akverma

¶17

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

Suraj Kumar v. State of U.P. Thru.Secy. Home and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Suraj Kumar v. State of U.P. Thru.Secy. Home and 3 Others

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

Similar cases

Smt. Jaya Sharma Nee Tiwari vs Uma Kant Sharma

Susheela Shukla @ Sarla vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home , Lucknow

Irfan vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Lko. and 3 Others

Amrendra Kumar Kushwaha Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Jiyauddin Siddiqui Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko.

Chhote Alias Samarpal Vs State of U.P. through Principal Secretary Home U.P. Government, Lucknow