Jagdish Kumar Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:91532

Court No. - 65

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 15195 of 2025

Applicant :- Jagdish Kumar Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Ajay Kumar Mishra,Meenu Shukla Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.

¶6

List has been revised. As informed by learned State Law Officer, notice to the informant has been served on 02.05.2025 but none is present on behalf of the informant.

¶7

Supplementary affidavit filed today by the learned counsel for the applicant is taken on record.

¶8

Heard Sri Ajay Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Amit Kumar, learned State Law Officer and also perused the material placed on record.

¶9

Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 130 of 2025, under Sections 64(1), 127(2), 115(2), 123, 351(2) of BNS and Sections 3/4 of POCSO Act, Police Station - Khorabar, District - Gorakhpur, during the pendency of trial.

¶10

As per prosecution story, the applicant is stated to have met the victim in Civil Court as she had gone to take care of her civil case pending there and is stated to have helped her in the said case, as such, established corporeal relationship with her on the false promise of marriage and kept on doing so for a substantial period of time.

¶11

Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the applicant is absolutely innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. He has nothing to do with the said offence as alleged in the FIR. The alleged incident has occurred in the year 2021 and the FIR has been instituted on 21.02.2025 which is delayed by about four years from the year of incident and there is no explanation of the said delay caused.

¶12

Learned counsel has also stated that at the time of onset of

¶13

crime, the victim was about 18 years old as per her high school certificate as her date of birth mentioned therein was 02.03.2004, as such, on the date of alleged incident, she was about 17 years 09 months 18 days old but the victim has escalated the allegations in the FIR. There is no medical corroboration of the incident.

¶14

Learned counsel has next contended that criminal history of nine cases assigned to the applicant stands explained as in eight of those cases, he is on bail and in one case, he has filed application for bail before the trial court and he has yet to be decided. The applicant is languishing in jail since 21.03.2025 and he is ready to cooperate with trial. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶15

Per contra, learned State Law Officer has vehemently opposed the bail application but unable to dispute the submissions raised by the learned counsel for the applicant.

¶16

The date of birth of the victim as per high school certificate is 02.03.2004, as such, she may be considered major in light of the judgement of Supreme Court passed in Sushil Kumar vs. Rakesh Kumar, (2003) 8 SCC 673 , wherein it has been opined that it is more often in the Indian Society that person shows the age of their wards much below than their actual age.

¶17

In the case of Prabhakar Tewari Vs. State of U.P. and another, (2020) 11 SCC 648 , the Supreme Court has observed that pendency of several criminal cases against an accused by itself cannot be a basis for refusal of bail.

¶18

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, delay of four years in lodging the FIR and also considering the judgements of Supreme Court referred above regarding the consideration of age of the victim and the criminal history of the accused, I find it a fit case to release the applicant on bail. The bail application is allowed .

¶19

Let the applicant- Jagdish Kumar , who is involved in aforementioned case crime 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 subject to following conditions. Further, before issuing the release order, the sureties be verified.

¶20

i) The applicant will not tamper with the evidence during trial. ii) The applicant will not pressurise/intimidate with the prosecution

¶21

witnesses.

¶22

iii) The applicant will appear before the trial court on the date fixed.

¶23

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

¶24

It is made clear that observations made in granting bail to the applicant shall not in any way affect the learned trial Judge in forming his independent opinion based on the testimony of the witnesses.

¶25

Order Date:- 28.5.2025 Siddhant

¶26

(Justice Krishan Pahal)

¶27

Digitally signed by :- SIDDHANT SAHU High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jagdish 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