Allahabad High Court
Deepak Kumar vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others on 1 July, 2024
Author: Krishan Pahal
Bench: Krishan Pahal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:106567
Court No. - 68
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 22454 of 2024
Applicant :- Deepak Kumar
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others
Counsel for Applicant :- Kiran Yadav,Sanjay Kumar Yadav
Counsel for Opposite Party :- Atul Singh,G.A.
Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.
1. List has been revised.
2. Heard Shri Sanjay Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant, Ms. Shraddha Singh holding brief of Sri Atul Singh learned counsel for the informant as well as Shri R.P. Patel, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No.162 of 2024, under Sections 363, 366 and 376 I.P.C. and 3/4 POCSO Act, Police Station Raunapar, District Azamgarh, during the pendency of trial.
4. As per prosecution story, the applicant along with other co-accused persons stated to have enticed away the minor daughter of the informant on 24.04.2024 at about 9:00 a.m. and other co-accused persons are stated to have reported the matter to her.
5. Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that the applicant is absolutely innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is further stated that the F.I.R. is delayed by about two days and there is no explanation of the said delay caused. Learned counsel has further stated that the victim is a consenting party and in her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., she has stated that she had gone with the applicant to Azamgarh and both remained there in a hotel and the applicant is stated to have forcibly committed rape with her.
6. It is further stated that as per school certificate age of the victim is 17 years, 3 months and 21 days. He has placed much reliance on the judgment of Supreme Court passed in Sushil Kumar vs. Rakesh Kumar, (2003) 8 SCC 673, wherein 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. It is also settled by Supreme Court that as per the medical records, a leverage of two years may be granted to the accused person. 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.
7. 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 27.04.2024. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.
8. Per contra, learned counsel for the informant as well as learned A.G.A. have vehemently opposed the bail application but unable to dispute the submissions raised by the learned counsel for the applicant.
9. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, the statement of the victim recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., 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.
10. Let the applicant- Deepak Kumar, involved in aforementioned case crime number be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions.
(i) The applicant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.
(ii). The applicant will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness.
(iii) The applicant will appear before the trial court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted.
(iv) 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.
(v) 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.
11. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail. Identity, status and residence proof of the applicant and sureties be verified by the court concerned before the bonds are accepted.
12. 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.
Order Date :- 1.7.2024
Jitendra
