Sujeet Kashyap Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and 4 Others

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:50165

Court No. - 12

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 4266 of 2024

Applicant :- Sujeet Kashyap Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. And 4 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Abhishek Awasthi,Ram Saran Awasthi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J.

¶6

1 . Rejoinder affidavit filed today is taken on record.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned A.G.A. and perused the record. No one appears on behalf of the complainant despite service of notice.

¶8

3 . In terms of the FIR, it was alleged that the daughter of the informant as well as the daughter of the neighbour namely the victim of the present case aged about 17 years had left home without information and was missing. Subsequently, in the statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C., the victim stated her age as 17 years and stated that on 14.01.2024, the applicant called her and promised to marry her. She also stated that they were on talking terms for the last three months and thereafter, the victim went to the applicant and physical relations were formed. It was also stated that thereafter the victim left along with her Aunt for Lucknow and thereafter the FIR was got registered. The FIR in question was registered on 25.01.2024. In terms of the statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C., the victim had disclosed that she had met her brother in law on 14.01.2024.

¶9

4 . The counsel for the applicant draws my attention to the statement of made by the victim before the Medical authorities, wherein she stated that on 24.01.2024 the applicant had called her on telephone and where she went along with her friend at the said place of incident the applicant and his friend were present and both of them

¶10

committed wrong to them and thereafter they went and both the girls came back to Lucknow on their own. The tentative age of the victim as per the FIR was 17 years and the in the two statement also the same was disclosed as 17 years, however in the medical, the tentative age has been assessed as 14 years.

¶11

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

¶12

6. Considering the substantial delay in lodging the FIR and the statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. and the statement given before the medical authorities indicating that the applicant and the victim knowing each other for a substantial time, prima facie, a case for bail is made out, particularly when the applicant is in custody since 02.02.2024 and has no criminal history, is enlarged on bail. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed .

¶13

7. Let the applicant Sujeet Kashyap be released on bail in FIR/ Case Crime No. 0029 of 2024, under Sections 363, 366, 376 IPC and Section 3/4 POCSO Act and Section 3(2)(v) SC/ST Act, Police Station Kotwali Haidergarh, District Barabanki, 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 :- 24.7.2024 Arun

¶18

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

Sujeet Kashyap v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sujeet Kashyap v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and 4 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

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

Afzal Quraishi Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko

Ashok Chaurasia @ Ashok Kumar Chaurasia Vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko.

Rangilal Vs State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Sectt. Lko

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

Aakash Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Civil Sectt. Lko.