Sarvesh Kumar v. State Of U.P. And 3 Others
Case at a glance
Outcome
Bail granted
bail application is allowed
Provisions considered
Key paragraphs
- Para 88. 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…
Judgment
Heard Sri Uma Nath Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Amaresh Yadava, learned counsel for the informant as well as Sri V.K.S. Parmar, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record.
Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 290 of 2024, under Sections 137(2), 64(1) B.N.S. and 5/6 POCSO Act, Police Station- Lalganj, District- Basti, during the pendency of trial.
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 a consenting party as is but evident from her statement recorded U/s 183 B.N.S.S., whereby she has stated that she had gone all the way from her native place Basti to Indore, Madhya Pradesh and had stayed with the applicant for two days. The said travelling of the victim to the place of residence of the applicant speaks volume of her consent. The victim is major aged about 19 years as per the ossification test report.
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 antecedent of the applicant. The applicant is languishing in jail since 16.1.2025 and he is ready to cooperate with trial. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.
Per contra, learned A.G.A. and learned counsel for the informant have vehemently opposed the bail application.
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.
Operative part
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.
Let the applicant- Sarvesh 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. (i) The applicant shall not tamper with evidence. (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.
In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.
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 :- 20.3.2025 Vikas (Justice Krishan Pahal) VIKAS VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: bail application is allowed
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — ss. 64(1), 137(2); Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012; Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 — s. 183; Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 313.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Allahabad High Court, on 20 Mar 2025. The bench was KRISHAN PAHAL.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.