Allowed

Brajesh Kumar v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC5 Feb 2025ABAIL/873/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Anticipatory bail application permitted where no substantive evidence exists. Court noted victim was likely a major and applicant cooperated in investigation without custodial interrogation needing to be feared.

What did the court decide?

Enlargement on anticipatory bail by furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 with two sureties and complying with standard conditions.

Brajesh Kumar vs State of U.P. and 3 Others — Anticipatory Bail | Allahabad HC (2025)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:16960

¶2

Court No. - 67

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 873 of 2025

¶4

Applicant :- Brajesh Kumar Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Balbir Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Vivek Varma,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Rajshekhar Srivastava, learned AGA for the State- opposite party no. 1, and Sri Sanjeev Kumar Rathore, learned counsel for the informant, and perused the material available on record.

¶7

This application under section 438 Cr.P.C. has been filed seeking anticipatory bail in Case Crime No. 394 of 2022, under Sections 363, 366, 376 I.P.C. and 3/4 Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, Police Station Kotwali, District Mainpuri.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the instant case. The victim in her statement under Sections 161 Cr.P.C. and 164 Cr.P.C. had stated that she is aged 19 years and she has gone voluntarily with the applicant and performed marriage with him. There is no allegation of sexual assault against the applicant. It is next contended that the medical report sent by Chief Medical Officer, Mainpuri to determine the age of the victim opines that she is 17 years. The range of error in determining the age is about two years and the same should be read in favour of the applicant at this stage. Further, the relevant scientific parameters as per latest medical protocol which would establish the majority of the victim has been excluded from consideration in the medical report. The medical report is flawed. In fact, the victim is a major. During the pendency of investigation, the applicant was granted protection till the submission of police report by this Court vide order dated 02.12.2022 passed in Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 18474 of 2022, Brajesh Kumar v. State of U.P. and others. The applicant had cooperated in the investigation. No custodial interrogation is required. The applicant has been summoned by the concerned court. The applicant has no criminal antecedents. Charge-sheet has been submitted. No custodial interrogation is required. The

¶9

applicant has apprehension of his arrest in the above mentioned case.

¶10

Learned A.G.A. and learned counsel for the informant opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail but could not satisfactorily dispute the aforesaid submissions from the record.

¶11

Having regard to the submissions made by learned counsel for the applicant, considering the nature of accusations and antecedents of the applicant and, in particular, the fact that there is no allegation of sexual assault against the applicant, as per the medical report the victim was seventeen years and the range of determining the age is about two years, at this stage there is no substantive evidence against the applicant and the applicant had cooperated in the investigation, without commenting on merits of the case, I am of the opinion that the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on anticipatory bail.

¶12

In the event of arrest, the applicant- Brajesh Kumar, involved in the aforesaid case crime, be released on anticipatory bail during pendency 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:-

¶13

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

¶14

(ii) 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 from disclosing such facts to the Court;

¶15

(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 concerned court.

¶16

Further, in default of any of the conditions, the court concerned is at liberty to pass appropriate orders for enforcing and compelling the same.

¶17

The application stands disposed of.

¶18

Order Date :- 5.2.2025 SKT/-

¶19

Digitally signed by :- SHIVA KANT TIWARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Brajesh Kumar v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Brajesh Kumar v. State of U.P. 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

Similar cases

Sanavvar vs State of U.P.

Brijesh Kumar @ Ulfat vs State of U.P.

Rahul Jatav vs State of U.P.

Rajesh Singh vs State of U.P.

Rajesh Singh vs State of U.P.

Priyanka vs State of U.P.