Allowed

Amresh Kumar Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko.

Allahabad HC7 Mar 2024BAIL/2455/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The applicant, a police officer, sought bail in a case involving allegations of sexual exploitation and threat to spread obscene videos. The court noted that the investigation was complete and a chargesheet was filed. Accepting submissions that Section 66E IT Act was not made out and that the applicant was unlikely to abscond or tamper with evidence, the court allowed the bail application.

What did the court decide?

Bail allowed to the applicant on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties.

Amresh Kumar Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy… — Cheque Dishonour | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Court No. - 9

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 2455 of 2024

¶3

Applicant :- Amresh Kumar Singh Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Atul Verma,Akhilendra Pratap Singh,Mohd Agha Haider Rizvi,Vinod Kumar Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Priya Singh,Trideep Narain Pandey

¶4

Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,J.

¶5

Heard Shri Atul Verma, learned counsel for the applicant, Shri Abhishek Kumar Singh, learned A.G.A. and Ms. Priya Singh, learned counsel for the informant and perused the record.

¶6

The instant application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 200 of 2023, under Sections 376(2), 323, 504, 506, 354 IPC and 66 E of the Information Technology Act, Police Station Alambagh, District Lucknow.

¶7

The aforesaid case has been registered on the basis of an FIR lodged on 06.09.2023 alleging that when the informant had gone to lodge a case in Police Post-Hydal, Sarojini Nagar, the applicant, who was posted as the Chawki In-charge, had misbehaved with her, had made her consume water laced with something and taken her to a hotel and the informant has a video recording of the incident available with her. The informant got married but the applicant was continuously threatening to defame her and to get her eliminated. She further stated that the applicant was threatening to spread her photos and videos virally.

¶8

In the statement of the victim recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., she reiterated the FIR version and stated that the applicant had taken her to a hotel and had sexually exploited her and a video recording of the incident was available with her. She further alleged that the applicant had prepared a video and had shown the same to her mother and that he had made her mobile phone disappear for removing evidence of the incident.

¶9

However, she had a video showing the applicant making physical relations with her.

¶10

The informant was taken for medico-legal examination but she declined to undergo the same.

¶11

It is recorded in the case diary that the applicant declined to hand over her mobile phone for investigation but she stated that she will produce the same in Court in case the need arises.

¶12

In the statement of the victim recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., she again stated that the applicant was threatening to spread her obscene video virally, whereafter, she also started preparing videos whenever the applicant used to take her to any hotel. She had gone to the police post, had called the applicant's wife and shown the video prepared by her but her phone was snatched away by some other police person. She further alleged that another police person had also raped her.

¶13

In the affidavit filed in support of the application it has been stated that the applicant is innocent, he has been falsely implicated in the present case and he has no criminal history.

¶14

The State has filed a counter affidavit opposing the bail application and copies of statements collected during investigation have been annexed with the counter affidavit. A copy of the charge-sheet dated 05.02.2024 submitted for offence under Sections 376(2), 323, 504, 506, 354 IPC and 66 E of the Information Technology Act has been annexed with the counter affidavit.

¶15

The informant has also filed a counter affidavit and a rejoinder affidavit has been filed on behalf of the applicant.

¶16

A supplementary affidavit has been filed on behalf of the applicant annexing therewith a copy of the relevant extracts of case diary, which shows that there is material showing video call between the informant and the applicant in which both of them are seen without clothes. A copy of the statement of the informant's father has been annexed with the supplementary affidavit wherein he had inter-alia stated that the applicant had given Rs.1,00,000/- as aid for the informant's marriage.

¶17

It is recorded in the case diary that the allegations of miscarriage and deletion of data from the informant's mobile

¶18

phone could not be established.

¶19

Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that from the allegations levelled in the FIR and the statements of the victim, the offence under Section 66 E of the Information Technology Act is not made out as there is nothing on record to indicate that the video was prepared without consent of the informant or that it was forwarded to any person. From the statement of the informant, it appears that the informant had herself prepared some obscene videos showing the informant and applicant making physical relations.

¶20

Keeping in view the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, coupled with the fact that the investigation stands completed, a chargesheet has already been submitted and in case of his release on bail, the applicant will not be in a position to tamper with the evidence and that the applicant is employed in the police department and there appears to be no reasonable apprehension of his absconding him from process of law, I am of the view that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail.

¶21

Accordingly, this bail application stands allowed .

¶22

Let the applicant -Amresh Kumar Singh be released on bail in the aforementioned case on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of magistrate/court concerned, subject to following conditions:-

¶23

(i) the applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence; (ii) the applicant shall not pressurize the prosecution witnesses; (iii) the applicant shall appear on each and every date fixed by the trial court.

¶24

[Subhash Vidyarthi,J.]

¶25

Order Date :- 19.4.2024 -Amit K-

¶26

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

Amresh Kumar Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Amresh Kumar Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko.

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

Surya Pratap and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. A.C.S Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home Lko. and 3 Others

Harinath and Another Vs State of U.P Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Civil Secrt. Lko. and 2 Others

Umesh Pratap Singh Alias Pappu and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Uday Bhan Pandey Vs State of U.P. Thru. Senior Superintendent of Police Bahraich and 3 Others

Rajesh Raj Khanna Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Lko.

Pappu Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and 2 Others