Allowed

Sanjeev Kumar @ Gulab v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home Lko. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC24 Sept 2024BAIL/10162/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia, J., in criminal miscellaneous bail application under IPC and POCSO Act, observed that victim statements did not support prosecution and refused medical exam. Granting bail on personal bonds and sureties without expressing opinion on merits.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail on personal bond and two sureties of Rs. 20,000/- each by furnishing conditions to attend hearings and not tamper with evidence.

Sanjeev Kumar @ Gulab vs State of U.P. Thru… — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:66064

¶2

Court No. - 12

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 10162 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Sanjeev Kumar @ Gulab Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home Lko. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Shailendra Pathak,Km. Anjali Gautam Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Shri Rajendra Prasad Lodhi, learned counsel for the respondent complainant as well as learned A.G.A. and perused the record.

¶7

Vakalatnama filed by Shri Rajendra Prasad Lodhi, Advocate on behalf of respondent complainant is take on record.

¶8

The F.I.R. in question was lodged as a missing person report. Subsequently, in the two statements recorded under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C., the victim did not support the prosecution story rather she stated that she had gone to Ayodhya where they married and thereafter gone to Ahemdabad. As per the F.I.R., the age of the victim is 16 years.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the victim has refused to undergo medical examination. The victim has not supported the prosecution story in her statements recorded under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. There is no definite document with regard to the age of the victim which can be ascertained at the time of trial under the Juvenile Justice Act readwith the rules framed thereunder. The applicant is in jail since 15.7.2024 having no criminal history, hence the applicant may be enlarged on bail.

¶10

Learned A.G.A. also opposed the prayer for bail.

¶11

Considering the statements of the victim recorded under Sections 180 and 183 of B.N.S.S. which do not support the prosecution story and the fact that the victim has refused to undergo medical examination and there is no definite

¶12

document with regard to the age of the victim which can be ascertained at the time of trial under the Juvenile Justice Act coupled with the fact that the applicant has no criminal antecedents and is in custody since 14.8.2024, without expressing any opinion on merit, I am of the view that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail.

¶13

Accordingly, the bail application is allowed.

¶14

Let the applicant Sanjeev Kumar @ Gulab be released on bail in FIR/ Case Crime No.122 of 2024, under Sections 363, 366, 376 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of the POCSO Act, Police Station Rehra Bazaar, District Balrampur on his furnishing personal bonds and two reliable sureties of Rs.20,000/- each to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions :-

¶15

(a) The applicant shall execute a bond to undertake to attend the hearings;

¶16

(b) The applicant shall not commit any offence similar to the offence of which he is accused or suspected of the commission; and

¶17

(c) 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 or tamper with the evidence.

¶18

Order Date :- 24.9.2024

¶19

Shukla

¶20

Digitally signed by :- ASHUTOSH KUMAR SHUKLA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Sanjeev Kumar @ Gulab v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home Lko. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sanjeev Kumar @ Gulab v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home Lko. 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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Atul Yadav @ Pradeep Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home , Lko.

Dhiru @ Dhirendra Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home , Lko.

Jagdish and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

U.P. State Industrial Development Authority,Trans Ganga City,Unnao Thru. Its Senior Project Officer vs Deepak Dwivedi

Smt. Parwati vs State of U.P. Thur. Addl. Chief Secy Deptt. of Home Lko.

Shekhar Singh @ Ashcharya Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Ministry of Home Affairs Lko.