Allowed

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

Allahabad HC3 Mar 2025BAIL/7249/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Allahabad High Court bail grant: Govind Kumar (applicant) vs State of U.P. and 3 others; CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. 7249 of 2025; Justice Krishan Pahal; decided 3.3.2025; Neutral Citation 2025:AHC:29090; Court No. 65. Case Crime No. 208 of 2023, P.S. Aliganj, District Etah; charges under Sections 363, 366, 376 I.P.C. and Sections 3/4 POCSO Act; bail during pendency of trial. Precedents re

What did the court decide?

Applicant Govind Kumar to be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned, with sureties to be verified before iss

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

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:29090

¶2

Court No. - 65

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 7249 of 2025

¶4

Applicant :- Govind Kumar Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Anurag Shrivastava,Shiv Bhushan Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.

¶6

List has been revised.

¶7

Heard Sri Anurag Shrivastava, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Jai Kishan Chaurasia, learned State Law Officer for the State and perused the material placed on record.

¶8

Learned State Law Officer has informed that the notice to the informant has been served on 23.02.2025.

¶9

Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No.208 of 2023, under Sections 363, 366, 376 I.P.C. and 3/4 POCSO Act, Police Station Aliganj, District Etah, during the pendency of trial.

¶10

Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the applicant is absolutely innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. The FIR is delayed by about eight days and there is no explanation of the said delay caused. The victim is a consenting party as is evident from her statements recorded under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. She by her looks seems to be major. She herself has stated her age to be 19 years at the stage of her medical examination. Several other submissions have been made on behalf of the applicant to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against him. The circumstances which, as per counsel, led to the false implication of the applicant have also been touched upon at length. There is no criminal history of the applicant. The applicant is languishing in jail since 15.11.2024 and he is ready to cooperate with trial. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶11

Learned State Law Officer has vehemently opposed the bail application.

¶12

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.

¶13

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 .

¶14

Let the applicant- Govind 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.

¶15

(i) The applicant shall not tamper with evidence.

¶16

(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.

¶17

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

¶18

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.

¶19

Order Date :- 3.3.2025 (Ravi Kant)

¶20

(Justice Krishan Pahal)

¶21

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

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Govind 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

Awdhesh Kumar Kushwaha vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Mohd. Anas vs State of U.P.

Prabhavati Devi vs State of U.P. and Another

Kamal Kushwaha vs State of U.P.

Roshan Prajapati @ Rohit vs State of U.P.

Ankit Gautam vs State of U.P. and 3 Others