Dismissed

Pramod @ Kallu v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC19 Jul 2024ABAIL/6377/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court rejected an anticipatory bail application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. filed by a petitioner accused of outraging modesty and sexual assault on a 14-year-old minor. The court held that parameters for anticipatory and regular bail differ.

What did the court decide?

The application for anticipatory bail stands rejected based on the nature of allegations against a minor and the distinction between bail and anticipatory bail.

Pramod @ Kallu vs State of U.P. and 3 Others — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:115405

¶2

Court No. - 70

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 6377 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Pramod @ Kallu Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Mahendra Pratap Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Sameer Jain,J.

¶6

Sri Shatrughan Yadav, learned AGA apprised the Court that on 26.6.2024 notice has been served to the informant. Despite service of notice, none appeared on behalf of the informant.

¶7

Learned AGA apprised the Court that he has received the instructions, therefore, the instant anticipatory bail application may be finally, disposed off.

¶8

Heard Sri Mahendra Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Shatrughan Yadav, learned A.G.A. for the Staterespondent.

¶9

The present anticipatory bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant in Case Crime No. 107 of 2023, under Sections 354, 323, 34, 294 IPC and 9(छ)/10 POCSO Act, Police Station Rajpur, District Kanpur Dehat, with a prayer to enlarge him on anticipatory bail, till the conclusion of trial.

¶10

FIR of the present case was lodged against the applicant and three others and according to the FIR daughter of the informant aged about 14 years studied in class 9th and applicant alongwith other co-accused tried to outrage her modesty.

¶11

Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that on the basis of general allegations applicant has been made accused in the present matter.

¶12

He further submitted that actually marriage of the daughter of the informant was settled but subsequently it was brokn and informant was having doubt that due to the conduct of the applicant, marriage of his daughter could not be solemnized and only due to this reason, he implicated the applicant in the present

¶13

matter alongwith other accused.

¶14

He further submitted that bail application of the co-accused Suresh has been allowed by this Court vide order dated 9.4.2024 passed in Crl. Misc. Bail Application No. 10822 of 2024.

¶15

He further submitted that applicant is having no previous criminal history to his credit and investigation of the case is pending and police is trying to arrest the applicant.

¶16

Per contra, learned AGA opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail and submitted that criteria of bail and anticipatory bail are different, therefore, if co-accused Suresh has been released on bail then merely on this ground applicant should not be released on anticipatory bail.

¶17

He further submitted that there is specific allegation against the applicant that he alongwith co-accused Suresh used to stalk the daughter of the informant and daughter of the informant is hardly 14 years old girl, therefore, applicant should not be released on anticipatory bail.

¶18

I have heard learned counsel for both the sides and perused the record of the case.

¶19

However, from the record, it reflects that co-accused Suresh has been released on bail by this Court and allegation against the applicant and co-accused Suresh were same but this Court finds merit in the arguments advanced by learned AGA that parameters of bail and anticipatory bail are different and merely on the ground that one similarly placed co-accused has been released on bail, another accused who is seeking anticipatory bail, cannot be enlarged on anticipatory bail.

¶20

As far as merit of the present case is concerned, there is specific allegation that applicant alongwith co-accused Suresh used to stalk the daughter of the informant and daughter of the informant was hardly 14 years of age and no cogent reasons for his false implication, could be bring on record by the applicant.

¶21

Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, discussed above, in my view, the instant anticipatory bail application of the applicant stands rejected .

¶22

Order Date :- 19.7.2024/Ankita

¶23

Digitally signed by :- ANKITA SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Pramod @ Kallu v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pramod @ Kallu v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Manish Kumar Verma @ Uday vs State of U.P. and Another

Santram vs Central Bureau of Investigation

Ashish Kumar vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Shobhit Singh Alias Shiv Kumar Singh and 3 Others vs State of Up and 3 Others

Munazir Husain vs State of Up and Another

Rukhsana Khanam vs State of U.P. and Another