Allowed

Anoop Kumar v. State of Up & 3 Others

Allahabad HC18 Nov 2024ABAIL/11143/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court allowed an anticipatory bail application for the applicant in an IPC and POCSO case. Relying on the victim's contradictory statements, prior interim bail, and absence of custodial needs, the court granted release on personal bond with sureties.

What did the court decide?

Release on anticipatory bail by personal bond of Rs. 50,000 with two sureties each in like amount on standard conditions.

Anoop Kumar vs State of Up & 3 Others — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:189829

¶2

Court No. - 67

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 11143 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Anoop Kumar Opposite Party :- State Of Up & 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Jitendra Ojha,Shailesh Kumar Shukla Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Vivek Varma,J.

¶6

Learned A.G.A. submits that notice of the instant application has been served upon the opposite party no. 4/informant on 15.11.2024 and the opposite party no. 3/Child Welfare Committee, Shahjahanpur on 18.11.2024. The receiving endorsements produced by the learned A.G.A. are taken on record. However, none appears on behalf of the said opposite parties nor any counter affidavit has been filed on their behalf.

¶7

Heard counsel for the applicant, Sri Neeraj Kumar Sharma, learned AGA for the State and perused the material on record.

¶8

The present Anticipatory Bail Application has been filed with the prayer to grant anticipatory bail to the applicant in Case Crime No. 222 of 2020, under Sections 452, 376, 511, 506 of I.P.C. and Sections 7/8 of the Prevention of Child from Sexual Offences Act, Police Station - Madnapur, District- Shahjahanpur, during the pendency of trial.

¶9

Counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the instant case owing to certain other dispute between the parties. No offence as alleged has occurred. There are contradictions in the statement of the victim under Sections 161 Cr.P.C. and 164 Cr.P.C. The said contractions discredit the prosecution case. It is next contended that the applicant was granted protection by this Court till submission of Police report vide order dated 24.08.2020 passed in Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application No. 4600 of 2020 (Anoop Kumar vs. State of U.P.). The applicant has no criminal antecedents. The investigation has been completed. The applicant had cooperated in the investigation. Charge-sheet has been filed. No custodial interrogation is required. The applicant has been summoned by the concerned Court. The applicant has apprehension of his arrest in the above mentioned case. In case, the applicant is released on anticipatory bail, he will not misuse the said liberty.

¶10

Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail but could not satisfactorily dispute the aforesaid submissions from the record.

¶11

Having regard to the submissions made by counsel for the applicant, considering the nature of accusations, antecedents of the applicant, and the fact that there are contradictions in the statement of the victim under Sections 161 Cr.P.C. and 164 Cr.P.C., the fact that during the course of investigation, the applicant was granted interim protection till submission of Police report by this Court. No violation of the conditions of the anticipatory bail has been pointed out by the AGA. The applicant had cooperated in the investigation and no custodial interrogation is required, without commenting on merits of the case, I am of the opinion that the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on anticipatory bail.

¶12

In the event of arrest, the applicant Anoop Kumar, involved in the aforesaid case crime be released on anticipatory bail during pendency of trial, on furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:-

¶13

(i) the applicant shall make himself available on each date fixed in the matter by the court concerned;

¶14

(ii) 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 from disclosing such facts to the Court;

¶15

(iii) the applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court and if he has passport the same shall be deposited by him before the concerned court.

¶16

In default of any of the conditions, the court concerned is at liberty to pass appropriate orders for enforcing and compelling the same.

¶17

The application stands disposed of.

¶18

Order Date :- 4.12.2024 Sachin Mishra

¶19

Digitally signed by :- SACHIN MISHRA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Anoop Kumar v. State of Up & 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anoop Kumar v. State of Up & 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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Chandni and 2 Others vs State of U.P. and Another

Aas Mohammad vs State of Up and Another

Dinesh vs State of U.P.

Dev Kumar and Another vs State of U.P.

Diptee Singh vs State of U.P. and Another

Sanjeev Kumar vs State of Up and Another