Disposed

Amrit Kumar v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC30 Aug 2024ABAIL/8542/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Anticipatory bail application in a case under sections 363, 376 IPC and 3/4 POCSO Act. Considering the victim's Section 164 Cr.P.C. statement that she is 19 years old and accompanied the applicant voluntarily, without commenting on merits, the court granted anticipatory bail during trial pendency with conditions.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted on arrest, personal bond Rs.50,000 with two sureties each, subject to stated conditions.

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

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:151819

¶2

Court No. - 72

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 8542 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Amrit Kumar Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Mohd Hamid Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Vivek Varma,J.

¶6

Learned AGA submits that notice of this bail application has been served upon the informant/ opposite party no. 2 and C.W.C. on 27.8.2024. The receiving endorsements have been produced by learned AGA, the same are taken on record. However no one appears on behalf of the opposite party nos. 2 and 4 nor any counter affidavit has been filed on their behalf.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the applicant as well as Sri Anupam Ananad, learned Brief Holder for the State and perused the material placed on record.

¶8

This application under section 438 Cr.P.C. has been filed seeking anticipatory bail in Case Crime No.551 of 2024, under sections 363, 376 I.P.C., and 3/4 POCSO Act, P.S. Gulriha, District Gorakhpur.

¶9

Counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the instant case. As per the report of the Chief Medical Officer, Gorakhpur the age of the victim was found between 18 - 19 years. The victim in her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. stated that she is aged 19 years and she had gone with the applicant voluntarily to Kanpur. She further stated that she had married the applicant and wants to stay with him. The applicant has no criminal antecedents. It is next submitted that the investigation is going on and the applicant has apprehension of his arrest in the above mentioned case.

¶10

Learned Brief Holder for the State 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 learned counsel for the applicant, considering the nature of accusations and antecedents of the applicant and in particular the fact that the

¶12

victim in her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. stated that she is aged 19 years and had gone voluntarily with the applicant, without commenting on merits of the case, I am of the opinion that the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on anticipatory bail.

¶13

In the event of arrest, the applicant Amrit 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:-

¶14

(i) The applicant shall co-operate with the Investigating Officer during investigation and shall report to the Investigating Officer as and when required for the purpose of conducting investigation;

¶15

(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 him from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer;

¶16

(iii) The applicant shall not leave the country during the currency of trial without prior permission from the concerned trial Court.

¶17

(iv) The applicant shall surrender his passport, if any, to the concerned Court forthwith. His passport will remain in custody of the concerned Court.

¶18

(v) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence and 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 to ensure presence of the applicant.

¶19

(vi) In case, the applicant misuse the liberty of bail, the Court concerned may take appropriate action in accordance with law and judgment of Apex Court in the case of Sushila Aggarwal vs. State (NCT of Delhi) 2020 SCC Online SC 98 .

¶20

(vii) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. If in the opinion of the trial court default of this condition is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of his bail and proceed against him in accordance with law.

¶21

In case, the applicant does not co-operate in the proceedings of the trial, this order shall stand automatically recalled/vacated and the applicant shall be taken into custody, forthwith.

¶22

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

¶23

The application stands disposed of.

¶24

Order Date :- 18.9.2024 S.S.

¶25

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

Amrit Kumar v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Amrit Kumar 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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Ishteyaq Khan vs State of U.P. and Another

Arvind Kumar vs State of Up Others

Anoop vs State of U.P. and Another

Prempal and Another vs State of U.P. and Another

Gulam Ali vs State of U.P.

Sarvan Kumar vs State of U.P.