Allowed

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

Allahabad HC5 Feb 2025BAIL/3483/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bail application in a POCSO/BNS case involving an alleged relationship with a 17-year-old victim; counsel argued consent and doubt over age. Court relied on Supreme Court bail principles and age-understatement precedents and granted bail without expressing opinion on merits.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail on furnishing personal bond and two sureties, subject to conditions against tampering with evidence and attendance at trial.

Azad Kumar vs State of U.P. and 3 Others — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Allahabad HC (2025)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:46731

¶2

Court No. - 65

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 3483 of 2025 Applicant :- Azad Kumar Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Rajesh Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.

¶4

List has been revised.

¶5

Learned State Law Officer has informed that notice to the informant has been served on 9.3.2025.

¶6

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

¶7

Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 288 of 2024, under Sections 137(2), 64 B.N.S. and 5/6 POCSO Act, Police Station Belipar, District Gorakhpur, during the pendency of trial.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the applicant is absolutely innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. The victim is the consenting party, as is evident from her statement recorded u/s 183 B.N.S.S., whereby she has stated that she had stayed with the applicant at Lucknow and at several other placed. The victim is aged about 17 years as per High School certificate, but by her looks, she seems to be major. There is no medical corroboration of the incident. There is no criminal history of the applicant. The applicant is languishing in jail since 30.1.2024. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶9

Learned State Law Officer has vehemently opposed the bail application but has not disputed the aforesaid submissions of learned counsel for the applicant.

¶10

The Supreme Court in the case of Niranjan Singh and another vs. Prabhakar Rajaram Kharote and others AIR 1980 SC 785 has avoided detailed examination of the evidence and elaborate documentation of the merits of the case as no party should have the impression that his case has been prejudiced. A prima facie satisfaction of case is needed but it is not the same as an exhaustive exploration of the merits in the order itself.

¶11

In the judgement of Supreme Court passed in Sushil Kumar vs. Rakesh Kumar, (2003) 8 SCC 673 , it has been stated that it is more often in the Indian Society that person shows the age of their wards much below than their actual age. In the case of Brij Mohan Singh vs. Priya Brat Narain Sinha, AIR 1965 SC 282, this Court, inter alia, observed that in actual life it often happens that persons give false age of the boy at the time of his admission to a school so that later in life he would have an advantage when seeking public service for which a minimum age for eligibility is often prescribed.

¶12

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, the evidence on record, and taking into consideration the settled law of the Supreme Court passed in Satender Kumar Antil vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and Ors., 2022 INSC 690 and Manish Sisodia vs. Directorate of Enforcement, 2024 INSC 595 and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed .

¶13

Let the applicant- Azad 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.

¶14

(i) The applicant shall not tamper with evidence.

¶15

(ii) 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./351 B.N.S.S. 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.

¶16

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

¶17

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.

¶18

Order Date :- 3.4.2025\Shalini

¶19

(Justice Krishan Pahal)

¶20

Digitally signed by :- SHALINI JAISWAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Azad 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Dhananjay Dubey vs State of U.P.

Surendra Prasad Goand and Another vs State of U.P.

Laxman vs State of U.P.

Santosh Kumar vs State of U.P.

Deepak vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Riyaz Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.