Allowed

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

Allahabad HC2 Apr 2025BAIL/6973/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 6973 of 2025, the Allahabad High Court granted bail to Sunil Kumar, accused of rape and sexual molestation of a minor under Sections 376 IPC and POCSO Act, after considering age dispute arguments and prior closure reports.

What did the court decide?

Release of the applicant on bail upon furnishing a personal bond and two sureties in the like amount, subject to standard conditions.

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

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:45832

¶2

Court No. - 65

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 6973 of 2025

¶4

Applicant :- Sunil Kumar Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Alok Tiwari Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.

¶6

List has been revised.

¶7

Learned State Law Officer has informed that notice to the informant has been served on 24.2.2025.

¶8

Heard Sri Alok Tiwari, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Sushil Kumar Shukla, learned State Law Officer for the State and perused the material placed on record.

¶9

Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No.319 of 2022, under Sections 376 I.P.C. and 3/4 POCSO Act, Police Station- Barkheda, District- Pilibhit, during the pendency of trial.

¶10

As per prosecution story, the applicant is stated to have lured the victim into his net and had taken her to his house on 30.7.2022 and committed rape with her.

¶11

Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the FIR is delayed by about three days and there is no explanation of the said delay caused. The victim by her looks seems to be major, although as per her school certificate of Class-8th, she was 16 years, 03 months and 09 days old. The said document cannot be taken into consideration being barred by Section 94 of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act.

¶12

Learned counsel for the applicant has also placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court passed in P. Yuvaprakash vs State Rep. by Inspector of Police, AIR 2023 SC 3525 , wherein it is observed that in the absence of records relating to the birth of the victim, no other documents except the Matriculation or equivalent certificate from the concerned examination board or certificate by a corporation, municipal authority or a Panchayat can be relied

¶13

upon to ascertain the age of the victim.

¶14

Learned counsel for the applicant has further stated that after thorough investigation and on the basis of statement of victim recorded U/s 164 Cr.P.C., whereby she has exonerated the applicant, the police was pleased to file closure report on 1.9.2022. Subsequent to it, the same informant/victim had filed protest petition on 21.4.2023 which was allowed and the police was ordered to conduct further investigation vide order dated 19.6.2023 passed by the Magistrate concerned. Subsequent to it, the statement of father of the victim was recorded who has stated that if the applicant is ready to marry the victim, he has no objection.

¶15

Learned counsel for the applicant has further stated that subsequently after thorough investigation and on the basis of supplementary statement of the victim recorded U/s 161 Cr.P.C., the final report (charge-sheet) has been submitted on 19.10.2024. It is a clear cut case of false implication. There is no criminal antecedent of the applicant. The applicant is languishing in jail since 16.10.2024 and he is ready to cooperate with trial. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶16

Learned State Law Officer has vehemently opposed the bail application on the ground that the victim was minor and the applicant being her relative has misused his clout.

¶17

In light of the judgement of the Supreme Court passed in Niranjan Singh and another vs Prabhakar Rajaram Kharote and others AIR 1980 SC 785, this Court 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.

¶18

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 .

¶19

Let the applicant- Sunil 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 shall not tamper with evidence.

¶21

(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.

¶22

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

¶23

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.

¶24

Order Date :- 2.4.2025 Vikas

¶25

(Justice Krishan Pahal)

¶26

Digitally signed by :- VIKAS VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sunil 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

Vimlesh Dubey @ Rahul Dubey vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Harsh @ Harish vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Arun Pratap Singh @ Lalaiya vs State of U.P. and Another

Uttam @ Vimal vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Lantesh vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Vinay Alias Sahwag vs State of U.P. and 3 Others