Allowed

Arun Kumar v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin.Secy. Deptt. of Home and 3 Others

Allahabad HC5 Jan 2024BAIL/34/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The single judge granted bail to the applicant in a criminal case involving a major consenting victim who left the applicant's custody, traveled to Delhi, and married him, with the victim's statements and medical report not corroborating the prosecution case.

What did the court decide?

The applicant is released on bail on filing a personal bond and two sureties, subject to specific conditions preventing tampering with evidence and witnesses.

Arun Kumar vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin.Secy. Deptt. of… — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Court No. - 14

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 34 of 2024

¶3

Applicant :- Arun Kumar Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin.Secy. Deptt. Of Home And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Mohammad Imaran Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Jai Prakash Shukla

¶4

Hon'ble Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.

¶5

1. Short Counter Affidavit filed by respondent no.2 is taken on record.

¶6

2. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the victim is major and consenting party. She on her own accord went away on 28.4.2022 to Jais from her house at 1 O'clock in night. Thereafter from Jais she went to Delhi through train. She resides there with the applicant for ten days' and married him. The victim in her statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and Section 164 Cr.P.C. has not supported the prosecution case. Medical does not corroborate the prosecution story. The applicant has no criminal history.

¶7

3. Learned A.G.A. has opposed the bail prayer, however, he could not dispute the aforesaid facts.

¶8

4. On due consideration to the submissions advanced; perusal of the record; as also the statements of the victim under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and Section 164 Cr.P.C.; as per the medico legal examination the victim is major; the applicant is

¶9

languishing in jail since 18.10.2022; the applicant has no previous criminal history and without expressing any opinion on merits of the case I find it to be a fit case for enlarging the applicant on bail.

¶10

5. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed. Let the applicant Arun Kumar be released on bail in aforesaid case crime number subject to his furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court concerned with the following conditions:

¶11

(i) The applicant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.

¶12

(ii) The applicant will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness.

¶13

(iii) 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.

¶14

(iv) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when 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.

¶15

(v) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶16

(vi) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued and the applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶17

Order Date :- 5.1.2024

¶18

Madhu

¶19

Digitally signed by :- MADHU KUMARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Arun Kumar v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin.Secy. Deptt. of Home and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Arun Kumar v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin.Secy. Deptt. of Home and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Sonu Kumar Vs State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home

Kuldeep Yadav Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko.

Ishityaqk @ Manne Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko.

Arun Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin.Secy. Deptt. of Home and 3 Others

Mohd. Sohel Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Lko.

Ramveer Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Secrett. U.P. Lko.