Allowed

Sujeet Kumar v. State of Up and 3 Others

Allahabad HC6 Sept 2024ABAIL/8826/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court granted anticipatory bail to the applicant, finding that the victim's age was 19 years per ossification test, he had cooperated in the investigation, and no custodial interrogation was required. The bail was granted until the submission of the police report with standard conditions.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted pending submission of police report upon furnishing personal bond of Rs. 50,000 with two sureties.

Sujeet Kumar vs State of Up and 3 Others — Anticipatory Bail | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:145163

¶2

Court No. - 72

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 8826 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Sujeet Kumar Opposite Party :- State Of Up And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Satish Sharma Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Vivek Varma,J.

¶6

Learned AGA on the basis of instructions submits that notice of the instant bail application has been served on informant/opposite party no.4 on 26.8.2024. The receiving endorsement has been produced by learned AGA, the same is taken on record. However, no one appears on behalf of the opposite party no.4 nor any counter affidavit has been filed on her behalf.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned A.G.A. 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.149 of 2023, under sections 363, 366, 376(3) I.P.C., and 3/4 POCSO Act, P.S. Manjhanpur, District Kaushambi.

¶9

Counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the instant case. The victim in her statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and 164 Cr.P.C. stated that she is aged 18 years and has married the applicant. Further in pursuance to the order dated 26.6.2023 passed by this Court in Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 7701 of 2023 (Smt. Janki Devi and another vs. State of U.P. and 3 others) ossification test of the victim was conducted by a panel of three doctors. As per the said test the age of the victim was found 19 years. The charge-sheet has been filed by the investigating officer. The applicant had cooperated in the investigation. No custodial interrogation is required. The applicant has no criminal antecedents. The applicant has been summoned by the concerned court. The applicant has apprehension of his arrest in the above mentioned case.

¶10

Learned A.G.A. 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 as per the ossification test the age of the victim was found 19 years, the fact that the victim in her statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and 164 Cr.P.C. stated that she is aged 18 years and has married the applicant, the fact that the applicant had cooperated in the investigation, the fact that no custodial interrogation is required, the fact that the charge-sheet has been filed by the investigating officer, without commenting on merits of the case, I am of the opinion that the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on anticipatory bail till the submission of police report.

¶12

In the event of arrest, the applicant Sujeet 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 and every 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 :- 6.9.2024 S.S.

¶19

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

Sujeet Kumar v. State of Up and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sujeet Kumar v. State of Up and 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

Similar cases

Aradhana Singh and Another vs State of U.P. and Another

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

Rohit vs State of U.P.

Smt Maya Devi vs State of Up and Another

Riyajul Hasan and Another vs State of Up

Sumit Yadav and Another vs State of U.P.