SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Pradeep Kumar vs State Of U.P. on 6 January, 2020


?Court No. – 71


Applicant :- Pradeep Kumar

Opposite Party :- State of U.P.

Counsel for Applicant :- Amit Kumar Singh

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

Hon’ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.

1. Heard Sri Amit Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the applicant as well as Sri Nagendra Kumar Srivastav, learned AGA for the State and perused the material placed on record.

2. The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant – Pradeep Kumar with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No. – 1965 of 2017, under Section – 377 SectionI.P.C. and 5/6 POCSO Act, Police Station – Dhanghata, District – Sant Kabir Nagar, during pendency of trial.

3. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, at present:

(i) the applicant is accused of offence of unnatural sex, punishable with imprisonment upto life;

(ii) against FIR lodged on 24.10.2017, the applicant is in confinement since 26.10.2017;

(iii) the applicant claims to have cooperated in the investigation. In any case he is not shown to have unduly evaded arrest;

(iv) the applicant has no criminal history;

(v) chargesheet has already been submitted, however, trial is pending;

(vi) on prima facie basis, only for purpose of grant of bail, it has been submitted by learned counsel for the applicant, in the first place, the applicant has remained confined for more than two years. Next, it has been submitted that at the trial, five witness of fact have already been examined and none has supported the prosecution allegation. The testimony of the victim child has also been recorded;

(vii) in any case, no reasonable apprehension has been brought to the fore by the State that the applicant, if enlarged on bail would either tamper with the evidence or delay the trial.

4. In view of the above, without expressing any opinion on the final merits of the case, let the applicant involved in the aforesaid crime be released on bail, on his furnishing a personal bond and two heavy sureties each in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the court concerned, with the following conditions:-

(i) The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence by intimidating/pressuring the witness, during the investigation or trial.

(ii) The applicant shall cooperate in the trial sincerely without seeking any adjournment.

(iii) The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal activity or commission of any crime after being released on bail.

5. In case, of breach of any of the above conditions, the bail being granted shall be cancelled.

6. Identity, status and residence proof of the applicant and sureties be verified by the court concerned before the bonds are accepted.

7. It is made clear that, in the event of violation of any terms and conditions of the bail order or in the event of any attempt being made by the applicant to intimidate the witness or to tamper the evidence, the informant shall be at liberty to file a bail cancellation application supported by the relevant material, that application if filed, may be taken up on priority.

Order Date :- 6.1.2020




Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

Copyright © 2022 SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Free Legal Help, Just WhatsApp Away

MyNation HELP line

We are Not Lawyers, but No Lawyer will give you Advice like We do

Please read Group Rules – CLICK HERE, If You agree then Please Register CLICK HERE and after registration  JOIN WELCOME GROUP HERE

We handle Women Centric biased laws like False Sectioin 498A IPC, Domestic Violence(DV ACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA 24, 125 CrPc, 307, 312, 313, 323, 354, 376, 377, 406, 420, 497, 506, 509; TEP, RTI and many more…

MyNation FoundationMyNation FoundationMyNation Foundation