Allowed

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

Allahabad HC6 Dec 2024BAIL/8293/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Second bail application in an FIR involving harassment, molestation and abetment of the victim's suicide attempt. After rejection of the first bail plea, the trial had advanced with three of six witnesses examined and the victim's cross-examination did not support the prosecution. Considering prolonged incarceration without criminal antecedents, bail was granted.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail on furnishing personal bond and two sureties each in like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned, subject to conditions.

Anuj Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:81643

¶2

Court No. - 16

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 8293 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Anuj Kumar Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Alok Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA for the State and perused the record.

¶7

This is second bail application. The first bail application of the applicant was rejected by this Court vide order dated 12.01.2024, which is extracted below:-

¶8

" Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA for the State and perused the record.

¶9

It is alleged in the FIR that sister of the informant was being harassed by the applicant for the last several months and was also molested by him. On 29.08.2022, the relatives who come for the marriage of his sister were stopped at Bistaula by the applicant and used scurrilous language with him. Because of this incident, marriage of the deceased was broken and due to this trauma she tried to commit suicide.

¶10

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent. He was being compelled by the informant to marry her sister which he denied and due to that, the family members of the informant became angry and have falsely implicated. The applicant is languishing in jail since 08.09.2022.

¶11

Per contra, learned AGA has opposed the bail application submitting that the victim in her statement has supported the prosecution case. He further submits that because of the applicant, the marriage of the victim was broken on 29.08.2022. The applicant misbehaved with the relatives who came to marry the victim. Thereafter on 13.08.2022, he put the pistol on the head of the victim and after holding her hand he threatened to abduct her. Due to this trauma, she left her education also.

¶12

Learned AGA has further submitted that not only the statements of the victim and the father of the victim support the prosecution case, but statement of one Om Prakash who had come for the marriage of his son Rohit with the victim also supports the prosecution case wherein he has clearly stated that the applicant told him that he loves the victim and he will not let her marry anywhere else and due to that he refused to marry the victim with his son.

¶13

On due consideration to the submission advanced as well as perusal of the record and considering the statement of the victim and father of the victim as well as statement of Om Prakash, complicity of the applicant is prima facie evident and considering the gravity of the offence, at this stage, I am not inclined to enlarge the applicant on bail.

¶14

Accordingly, the bail application of the applicant Anuj Kumar involved in Case Crime/FIR No. 504/2022, under Sections 352/354/306/511 IPC, Police Station - Bhira, District - Kheri, is hereby rejected.

¶15

However, liberty is granted to the applicant to revive his bail plea after the victim is examined before the trial court. "

¶16

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that after rejection of first bail application, victim has been examined. She in her cross examination has not supported the prosecution case. The applicant has no criminal history. Out of six proposed prosecution witnesses, three witnesses of fact have been examined including the victim. There are no chance of tempering the prosecution evidence. The applicant is languishing in jail since 08.09.2022.

¶17

Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the aforesaid facts as argued by the learned counsel for the applicant.

¶18

On due consideration to the fact that out of six prosecution witnesses, only three have been examined so far, there is hardly any chance of tempering the prosecution evidence, coupled with the fact that the applicant is languishing in jail since 08.09.2022, without having any criminal antecedent and the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh vs. State of Maharashtra (2024) 9 SCC 813 , without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, I find it to be a fit case for enlarging the applicant on bail.

¶19

Accordingly, the bail application is allowed.

¶20

Let the applicant, Anuj Kumar , involved in Case Crime/FIR No. 504/2022, under Sections 354, 352, 306, 511 IPC, Police Station - Bheera, District Lakhimpur Kheri, be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions which are being imposed in the interest of justice:-

¶21

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

¶22

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

¶23

(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.

¶24

(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.

¶25

(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.

¶26

(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.

¶27

Order Date :- 6.12.2024 Renu/-

¶28

Digitally signed by :- RENU AGARWAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anuj Kumar 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

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

Mohd. Suhail Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko and Another

Dilip Soni @ Sonu Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Mulla Mukarram @ Mukarramin Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Civil Sectt. Lko.

Om Sharma Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Lko.

Hriday Narayan Pandey and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and 2 Others