Allowed

Sandeep Kumar v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC7 Feb 2025BAIL/1117/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bail application under altered charges of rape under POCSO. The applicant had earlier been granted bail in the same FIR; charge was later framed under enhanced sections and he was taken into custody. The court granted bail, holding he was entitled to bail in the altered sections as he had not misused prior bail liberty.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail in F.I.R. No. 65 of 2019 on personal bond and two sureties, subject to conditions.

Sandeep Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl… — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Allahabad HC (2025)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:8180

¶2

Court No. - 13

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 1117 of 2025

¶4

Applicant :- Sandeep Kumar

¶5

Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko. And 3 Others

¶6

Counsel for Applicant :- P.K. Singh Bisen,Pallavi Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶7

Hon'ble Rajeev Singh,J.

¶8

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

¶9

It is admitted by the learned A.G.A. that the notice has already been served on the private respondent, but none has put in appearance on her behalf and, therefore, the bail application is being decided with the assistance of learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A.

¶10

The present bail application has been filed by the applicant in F.I.R. No. 65 of 2019, under Sections 376-DA, 504, 506 IPC and Sections 5G, 6 of POCSO Act, Police Station Manikpur, District Pratapgarh with the prayer to enlarge him on bail.

¶11

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has falsely been implicated in the present case. It is further submitted that earlier the applicant moved Bail Application No. 13282 of 2021 with the prayer to enlarge him on bail in F.I.R. No. 65 of 2019, under Sections 354, 504, 506 IPC and Sections 7/8 of POCSO Act, Police Station Manikpur, District Pratapgarh. The said application was allowed vide order dated 22.05.2023.

¶12

Order dated 22.05.2023 reads as under :

¶13

"1. Case called out.

¶14

No one has put in appearance on behalf of the complainant as the name of Shri Rajesh Kumar Srivastava, Advocate is shown on behalf of the complainant, therefore, matter is being proceeded.

¶15

Heard learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned A.G.A. for the State of U.P. and perused the record.

¶16

The present bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant in Case Crime No.65 of 2019 under Sections 354/504/506 I.P.C. and 7/8 of POCSO Act, Police Station Manikpur, District Pratapgarh, with the prayer to enlarge him on bail.

¶17

Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant is an innocent person and he is in jail since 24.09.2021. He further submitted that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case due to some money dispute in between the family members of the victim and the applicant. He further submitted that during the course of investigation, vaginal smear was taken for pathological examination and in the pathological examination, no spermatozoa was found. He further submitted that during the course of investigation, statement of victim under Section 161 and 164 was recorded and there is contradiction in her statements. He further submitted that as per the provisions of Section 35 of the POCSO Act, it is obligatory on the part of Investigating Officer to record the statement of victim within thirty days of taking of cognizance of the offence. He further submitted that applicant is having no criminal antecedent and charge sheet has already been filed and there is no possibility of tampering of evidence. In these circumstances, the applicant is entitled for bail. In case of being enlarged on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶18

Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer of the applicant for grant of bail but he does not dispute this fact that the applicant is in jail since 24.09.2021 and in the pathological examination, no spermatozoa was found.

¶19

Considering the rival submissions of learned counsel for parties, material available on record, contents of the F.I.R., pathological report, other relevant documents as well as totality of fact and circumstances, I am of the view that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail.

¶20

Let applicant - Sandeep Kumar - be released on bail in aforesaid Case Crime, on his furnishing personal bond and two reliable sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions:-

¶21

(i) The applicant shall not commit or participate in any offence similar to the offence of which he is accused, or suspected, of the commission of which he is suspected.

¶22

(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 him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶23

(iii) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the date 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.

¶24

(iv) 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

¶25

against him under Section 229-A IPC.

¶26

(v) 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., may be issued and if 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 IPC.

¶27

(vi) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the Trial Court on dates fixed for (1) opening of the case, (2) framing of charge and (3) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. If in the opinion of the Trial Court absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the Trial Court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law.

¶28

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.

¶29

Trial court is directed to conclude trial, expeditiously without giving any adjournment to either of the parties."

¶30

Submission of the learned counsel for the applicant is that later on, charge was framed by the trial court on 05.12.2024 under Sections 376DA, 504, 506 I.P.C. and Sections 5G, 6 of POCSO Act and thereafter, the applicant was taken into custody. It is vehemently submitted that as the applicant was earlier enlarged on bail in the present F.I.R. by this Court in Bail Application No. 13282 of 2021 and he never misused the liberty of bail, therefore, he is entitled to be released on bail in the altered Sections also. It is lastly submitted that in near future, there is no possibility of conclusion of trial and the applicant, who has no criminal antecedent, is in jail since 05.12.2024. In such circumstances, applicant is entitled for bail. It is also submitted that the applicant will never misuse the liberty of bail and shall fully cooperate in the trial.

¶31

Learned A.G.A. opposes the prayer for grant of bail to the applicant, but does not dispute the fact that charge sheet was filed by the Investigating Officer for the offences under Sections 354, 504, 506 IPC and Sections 7/8 of POCSO Act and thereafter the charge was framed by the trial court under Sections 376DA, 504, 506 I.P.C. and Sections 5G, 6 of POCSO Act. He also concedes that earlier the applicant was enlarged on bail by this Court vide order dated 22.05.2023 passed in

¶32

Bail Application No. 13282 of 2021.

¶33

Considering the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. and going through the contents of F.I.R., earlier order dated 22.05.2023 and other relevant documents, it is evident that the applicant was earlier enlarged on bail by this Court for the offences under Sections 354, 504, 506 IPC and Sections 7/8 of POCSO Act. In such circumstances, I am of the view that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in the altered Sections also.

¶34

Application stands allowed.

¶35

Let applicant -Sandeep Kumar be released on bail in F.I.R. No. 65 of 2019, under Sections 376-DA, 504, 506 IPC and Sections 5G, 6 of POCSO Act, Police Station Manikpur, District Pratapgarh, on his furnishing personal bond and two reliable sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions:-

¶36

(i) The applicant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which he is accused, or suspected, of the commission of which he is suspected.

¶37

¶38

(iii) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the date 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.

¶39

(iv) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel.

¶40

In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229-A IPC.

¶41

(v) 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. may be issued and if 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 IPC.

¶42

(vi) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on dates fixed for recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. If in the opinion of the trial court, absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law.

¶43

Any violation of above conditions will be treated misuse of bail and learned Court below will be at liberty to pass appropriate order in the matter regarding cancellation of bail.

¶44

Order Date :- 7.2.2025 VKS

¶45

Digitally signed by :- VIVEK KUMAR SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Sandeep Kumar v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sandeep Kumar v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko. 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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Tanveer Mustafa vs U.O.I. Thru. Addl. Director General Directorate of Revenue Intelligence Lucknow Zonal Unit

Paramjeet Yadav @ Sandeep vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko and Another

Lat Bahadur Singh Alias Kakku Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Lko. and Another

Hansraj @ Hansraj Rawat vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home U.P. Lko. and Another

Raghuvir Singh @ Bhola Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Mohd. Azimur Rehman Kidwai vs Director Dr. Ram Manohar Lohia Institute of Medical Sciences Lko and 4 Others