Allowed

Amit Kumar Gautam v. State of U.P. Thru. Principal Secy.Home Lko. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC15 Mar 2024BAIL/2987/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court allowed a second bail application for an accused in a POCSO and IPC case. The decision rested on the victim's statement excluding the applicant, the limited prosecution evidence, the applicant's lack of criminal history, and prolonged custody.

What did the court decide?

Bail granted subject to furnishing personal bond and two reliable sureties of Rs. 20,000/- each with standard conditions.

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

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:66263

¶2

Court No. - 12

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 2987 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Amit Kumar Gautam Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Principal Secy.Home Lko. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Dhiraj Chaurasiya,Divyanshu Anand,Gyan Singh,Rakesh Kumar Verma,Shyam Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J.

¶6

Supplementary Affidavit filed in court is taken on record.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA and perused the record. No one appears for the opposite party no.2 despite notice.

¶8

This is second application for bail of the accused-applicant seeking enlargement in Sessions Trial No.1262 of 2021 arising out of FIR/Case Crime No.0138 of 2021 under sections 363, 376-D, 354-Ka, 354-Kha IPC and section 5-g, 6 POCSO Act, P.S. Fatanpur, District Pratapgarh, the first bail application of the applicant was dismissed in default vide order dated 24.07.2023.

¶9

The FIR in question was lodged alleging that the daughter of the informant aged about 14 years was enticed by the coaccused along with the applicant. The FIR was lodged on 04.09.2021 alleging that the daughter of the informant was enticed on 06.08.2021.

¶10

While arguing the second bail application, the counsel for the applicant draws my attention to the statement of the victim recorded during the trial wherein she alleged that the coaccused Manish had committed wrong on her, however no allegations were levelled against the applicant.

¶11

Considering the statement of the victim coupled with the fact that out of twenty witnesses, only two have been examined and the applicant is in custody since 16.10.2021 having no criminal history, he is entitled for the bail. Thus the bail application is allowed.

¶12

Let the applicant Amit Kumar Gautam be released on bail in aforesaid FIR/Case Crime Number subject to his furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties of Rs.20,000/- (Twenty Thousand) each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the

¶13

court concerned with the following conditions:

¶14

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

¶15

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

¶16

(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.

¶17

Order Date :- 24.9.2024 VNP/-

¶18

Digitally signed by :- VISHVANATH PRASAD SHUKLA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Amit Kumar Gautam v. State of U.P. Thru. Principal Secy.Home Lko. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Amit Kumar Gautam v. State of U.P. Thru. Principal Secy.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

Irfan Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Govt. U.P. Lko. and Others

Kushlesh Dixit Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lucknow

Jagdish Soni Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Deptt., Lko.

Saleem vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Yasin vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Gurcharan vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. U.P. Lko. and 3 Others