Allowed

Amit Kumar v. the State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Lucknow

Allahabad HC24 Jan 2024/502/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Allowed bail application against implication for sexual exploitation and blackmail under Section 376 IPC. Court found no recovery of alleged video, contradictory victim statements, and no medical injury. Applicant has no criminal antecedents.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail on furnishing personal bond and two sureties subject to strict conditions including not tampering with evidence or witnesses.

Amit Kumar Vs the State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Lucknow — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:7313

¶2

Court No. - 14

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 502 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Amit Kumar Opposite Party :- The State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Lucknow Counsel for Applicant :- Sagar Singh,Shri Ram Maurya Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA for the State and perused the record.

¶7

It is alleged in the prosecution case that the applicant sexually exploited the informant in the year 2022 and made obscene video of the informant and further by showing the video has blackmailed the informant and has taken Rs. 25000/- from the informant which was given in presence of one Babloo Yadav of the village.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that no recovery of any video as alleged in the FIR has been found during the investigation. Statement of Babloo Yadav has not been taken by the investigating officer. Statements of the prosecutrix who is 26 years old married lady recorded under Section 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. have been found contradictory. No injury has been found in the medical examination of the victim. It is a case of false implication. In fact the applicant has already lodged a complaint against the victim and in retaliation to that the applicant has been implicated in the present case. Questionnaire regarding the same is on record as Annexure No. 8 to the bail application.

¶9

It is further submitted that the applicant is languishing in jail since 02.11.2023 without having any criminal antecedent. There is no possibility of the applicant of fleeing away after being released from jail or tampering with the witnesses. In case the applicant is enlarged on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶10

Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the aforesaid facts as argued by the learned counsel for the applicant.

¶11

On due consideration to the statements of the victim recorded under Section 161 and 164 Cr.P.C.; medical examination report as well as considering the fact that the applicant is languishing

¶12

in jail since 02.11.2023 without having any criminal antecedent and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I find it to be a fit case for enlarging the applicant on bail.

¶13

Accordingly, the bail application is allowed.

¶14

Let the applicant, Amit Kumar, involved in Case Crime/FIR No. 167/2023, under Sections 376 IPC, Police Station - Bighapur, District - Unnao, be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions which are being imposed in the interest of justice:-

¶15

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

¶16

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

¶17

(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.

¶18

(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.

¶19

(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.

¶20

(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, the

¶21

Order Date :- 24.1.2024 R.C.

¶22

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

Amit Kumar v. the State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Lucknow

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Amit Kumar v. the State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Lucknow

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

Isahak Vs State of U.P. Thru. the Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home, U.P. Lucknow

Naiem @ Motu Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Civil Sectt. Lko.

Jabbar and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Deptt.

Arif Khan Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lucknow

Mateen Ahmad Vs State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Secrt. Lko.

Raj Kumar Verma Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 3 Others