Allowed

Suraj Kumar v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Allahabad HC4 Jun 2024/6154/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court allowed the bail application of Suraj Kumar, an accused in a case under Sections 366, 376, and other relevant IPC provisions. The decision was based on discrepancies between FIR allegations, stalking statements, and subsequent victim statements, alongside the applicant's clean record.

What did the court decide?

The applicant Suraj Kumar is released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties, subject to conditions not to tamper with evidence or pressurize witnesses.

Suraj Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin… — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:42480

¶2

Court No. - 11

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 6154 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Suraj Kumar

¶5

Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Karnika Singh,Hari Nath Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶6

Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,J.

¶7

Heard Sri H.N. Singh, the learned counsel for the applicant as well as Sri Ajeet Singh, the learned State Counsel and perused the record.

¶8

The instant application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 98 of 2024, under Sections 366, 376, 323, 120B IPC, Police Station Kotwali Nagar, District Gonda.

¶9

The aforesaid case has been registered on the basis of an F.I.R. lodged on 18.02.2024 alleging that the informant's daughter aged about 17 years had gone missing.

¶10

The statement of the victim was recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. wherein she stated that she is aged 18 years and she had gone away from her home on her own and thereafter she went with the applicant to the house of his Mausi, where she stayed for two days. She categorically stated that she had gone with the applicant out of her own free will and the applicant did not do anything forcibly.

¶11

The victim was taken for medico legal examination but she declined to undergo the same.

¶12

Subsequent statement of the victim recorded under Section 164 Cr.p.C. is at variance with her earlier statement, wherein she has alleged use of force by the applicant.

¶13

In the affidavit filed in support of the bail application, it has been stated that the applicant is innocent, he has been falsely implicated in the present case and he has no criminal history

¶14

The learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer of the bail, but he could not dispute the aforesaid aspects of the matter.

¶15

Having considered the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view the fact that the FIR was lodged merely alleging that the victim had gone missing; that the FIR states the age of the victim to be 17 years; the victim stated her age to be 18 years and she categorically stated the Investigating Officer that she had gone with the applicant with her own free will; that the victim declined to undergo medico legal examination; as per educational certificate of the victim, she was major on the date of incident and that the applicant has no criminal history and he is languishing in jail since 03.03.2024 and without making any observations which may affect the merits of the case, I am of the view that the aforesaid facts are sufficient for making out a case for enlargement of the applicant on bail.

¶16

Accordingly, this bail application stands allowed .

¶17

Let the applicant- Suraj Kumar be released on bail in the aforesaid case, on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of Magistrate/Court concerned, subject to the following conditions: -

¶18

(i) the applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence;

¶19

(ii) the applicant shall not pressurize the prosecution witnesses;

¶20

(iii) the applicant shall appear on each and every date fixed by the trial court.

¶21

Order Date :- 4.6.2024 Pradeep/-

¶22

Digitally signed by :- PRADEEP SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Suraj Kumar v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Suraj Kumar v. State of U.P. Thru. 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Dileep Rajput Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Chand Babu Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy.Home Lko and 3 Others

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

Smt. Beenu Singh and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Rohit Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and Another

Kripal Singh Chauhan and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home and 2 Others