Deepu @ Deepak Kumar v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC23 Jan 2025ABAIL/537/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Anticipatory bail granted in POCSO case where victim is major and refused ossification test; co-accused already granted bail; investigating officer submitted two final reports finding no offence; bail granted till conclusion of trial with standard conditions.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted to applicant Deepu @ Deepak Kumar till conclusion of trial in Case Crime No. 345 of 2017 under Sections 363, 376-D, 120-B IPC and Section 3A/4 POCSO Act, subject to conditions. ¶¶20

Deepu @ Deepak Kumar vs State of U.P. and 3… — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Allahabad HC (2025)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:15953

¶2

Court No. - 68

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 537 of 2025

¶4

Applicant :- Deepu @ Deepak Kumar Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- A.K. Mishra,Sati Shanker Tripathi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Ashutosh Srivastava,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and Shri S.K.Rai, learned A.G.A.-Ist, for the State-respondent and perused the record.

¶7

The instant anticipatory bail application under section 438 Cr.P.C. has been filed with a prayer to enlarge the applicant Deepu @ Deepak Kumar on anticipatory bail in Case Crime No. 345 of 2017, under Sections 363, 376-D, 120-B I.P.C. and under Section 3-A/4 of POCSO Act, Police Station-Surir, District Mathura till the conclusion of the trial.

¶8

The applicant apprehends his arrest in the above mentioned Case Crime No. 345 of 2017, under Sections 363, 376-D, 120-B I.P.C. and under Section 3-A/4 of POCSO Act, Police StationSurir, District Mathura. The anticipatory bail of the applicant was rejected by the Court below vide order dated 19.04.2024.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicant contends that the incident is alleged to have taken place on 10.09.2017. An application u/s 156(3) Cr.P.C. was filed on 11.10.2017, which was allowed by the concerned Magistrate and consequently F.I.R. dated 27.11.2017 came to be registered as Case Crime No. 345 of 2017 under Sections 363, 376-D, 120-B I.P.C. and Section 3A/4 of POCSO Act, Police Station Surir, District Mathura. After registration of the F.I.R. the investigating officer taking into consideration the statements of witnesses examined under section 161 Cr.P.C. and other materials collected during the investigation opined that offence complained of was not made out and accordingly submitted a Final Report No. 469 of 2018. The protest petition filed against the Final Report was allowed vide order dated 21.02.2019.The investigating officer yet again submitted final report no. 1041 of 2019. The protest petition filed against the final

¶10

report was allowed with a direction that the protest petition be treated as complaint by order dated 20.12.2021. The order dated 20.12.2021 was assailed in an application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. No. 17208 of 2022, which was allowed vide order dated 10.08.2022 and the matter was remanded to the Court below with a direction to pass fresh orders.

¶11

It is next contended by learned counsel for the applicant that the Court below i.e. learned Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge POCSO Act Court No. 1, Mathura in Complaint Case No. 11 of 2021 summoned the applicant u/s 363, 376-D, 120-B I.P.C. and section 3A/4 of POCSO Act vide order dated 07.01.2023. The order dated 07.01.2023 has been assailed by the applicant in Crl. Misc. Application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. No. 5693 of 2023 (Vinod Kumar and Another Vs. State of U.P. and Another) in which notices have been issued to the opposite party no. 2 herein to file counter affidavit but no protection has been granted till date. The petition is pending consideration. However, the co-accused Smt. Lalita @ Kanta Devi and Vinod Kumar Sharma, have been granted bail and anticipatory bail, in Crl. Misc. Bail Application No. 5215 of 2024 and Anticipatory Bail Application No. 9561 of 2024, vide orders dated 03.09.2024 and 18.11.2024. It has also been argued that the victim is major and refused ossification test. In such circumstances, no offence u/s 3A/4 of POCSO Act is made out against the applicant.

¶12

The anticipatory bail has been opposed by learned A.G.A. but could not refute the submission of the learned counsel for the applicant.

¶13

Having regard to the submissions made by learned counsel for the applicant, considering the nature of accusations, antecedents of the applicant, without commenting on merits of the case, I am of the opinion that the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on anticipatory bail till the submission of police report.

¶14

In the event of arrest, the applicant- Deepu @ Deepak Kumar be released on anticipatory bail in the aforesaid case crime till conclusion of trial, on furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Court concerned with the following conditions:-

¶15

(i) The applicant shall make himself available on each date fixed in the matter by the court concerned;

¶16

(ii) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any

¶17

inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade from disclosing such facts to the Court;

¶18

(iii) The applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court and if he has passport, the same shall be deposited by him, before the Court concerned.

¶19

In default of any of the conditions, the Investigating Officer is at liberty to file appropriate application for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to the applicant.

¶20

The application stands disposed of .

¶21

Order Date :- 5.2.2025 Deepak/

¶22

Digitally signed by :- DEEPAK KUMAR KUSHWAHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Deepu @ Deepak Kumar v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Deepu @ Deepak Kumar v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Anil Kumar Kushwaha vs State of U.P.

Mohammad Tabsheerul Arifeen vs State of U.P.

Gaurav vs State of U.P.

Gaurav Kumar vs State of U.P.

Diwari vs State of U.P.

Dharmendra Yadav vs State of U.P.