Allowed

Sandeep Kumar v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Others

Allahabad HC5 Jan 2024BAIL/70/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal miscellaneous bail application under Sections 363, 366, 376(3), 506 IPC and POCSO Act, the Allahabad High Court allowed the applicant's bail. The court noted the victim's statement did not corroborate the prosecution story and the victim's tentative age was around 18 years. The applicant, having no criminal history, was ordered released on personal and surety bonds.

What did the court decide?

Applicant Sandeep Kumar released on bail under Sections 363, 366, 376(3), 506 IPC and POCSO Act, subject to furnishing personal bonds and two sureties of Rs. 20,000 each with specific conditions regar

Sandeep Kumar vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home… — Narcotics (NDPS) | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:44968

¶2

Court No. - 12

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 70 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Sandeep Kumar Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And Others Counsel for Applicant :- Ambica Tripathi,Ajeet Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Anita

¶5

Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned A.G.A. and perused the record.

¶7

No one appears on behalf of the respondent no.2 despite service of notice.

¶8

In terms of the F.I.R., a missing person report was lodged alleging therein that the grand daughter of the informant was enticed away by the applicant.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicant argued that in the statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C., the victim did not support the prosecution story rather she stated that she had gone alongwith the applicant on her own free will and they they had also married.

¶10

Learned counsel for the applicant has further argued that 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 has no criminal history and is in jail since 18.7.2023, hence the applicant may be enlarged on bail.

¶11

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

¶12

Considering the fact that the tentative age of the victim is around 18 years and the statement of the victim recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. which does not corroborate the prosecution story coupled with the fact that the applicant has no criminal history and is languishing in jail since 18.7.2023; and without expressing any opinion on merit, I am of the view that the applicant is

¶13

entitled to be released on bail.

¶14

Accordingly, the bail application is allowed.

¶15

Let the applicant Sandeep Kumar be released on bail in FIR/ Case Crime No.281 of 2023, under Sections 363, 366, 376(3), 506 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of the POCSO Act, Police Station Kasimpur, District Hardoi 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 :-

¶16

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

¶17

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

¶18

(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.

¶19

Order Date :- 2.7.2024/Shukla

¶20

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

Sandeep Kumar v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sandeep Kumar v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 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

Islam @ Munna Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Civil Sectt. Lko

Ram Bhajan Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home, Lko.

Akash Rawat Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Sectt. Lko and Others

Chhote Lal Lodhi Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home Lko. and 3 Others

Hajari Kuldeep Alias Hajari Kureel Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Govt. U.P. Lucknow and 3 Others

Shivam Shukla Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Civil Sectt. Lko