✦ Allahabad High Court · 11 Mar 2025

Amar Kumar Gautam v. State Of U.P. And 3 Others

CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. 45342 of 2024KRISHAN PAHAL4 min read

Case at a glance

Outcome

Bail granted

bail application is allowed

Key paragraphs

  • Para 1111. 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

2.

Heard Sri Rohit Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Ajeet Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the informant as well as Sri Pranshu Kumar, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record.

3.

Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 14 of 2024, under Sections 363, 366, 376 of I.P.C. and Sections 5(J)(ii)/6 of POCSO Act, Police Station - Rampur Manjha, District - Ghazipur, during the pendency of trial.

4.

The FIR was instituted against unknown person by the maternal uncle of the victim regarding his missing niece since 16.02.2024.

5.

Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the applicant is absolutely innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. He has nothing to do with the said offence as alleged in the FIR. The FIR is delayed by about seven days and there is no explanation of the said delay caused.

6.

Learned counsel has also stated that the victim is the consenting party as is evident from her statement recorded u/s 164 Cr.P.C. whereby she has stated that she was in love with the applicant and the matter came to the knowledge of her parents and she has been deported to her maternal uncle's home at Ghazipur and thereby she had gone with the applicant all the way to Delhi. The victim has expressed her willingness to spend her life with the applicant as she has married him. Learned counsel has also stated that the victim by her looks seems to be major. Although, as per ossification test report, she is stated to be between 15-16 years old.

7.

Learned counsel has also stated that the victim was pregnant and at the behest of the informant, her pregnancy has been terminated. It is a matter of consensual relationship between the two youths but owing to caste difference, the instant FIR has been instituted.

8.

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 25.07.2024 and he is ready to cooperate with trial. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.

9.

Per contra, learned A.G.A. and learned counsel for the informant have vehemently opposed the bail application but unable to dispute the submissions raised by the learned counsel for the applicant and also the fact that the applicant has no criminal history.

10.

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

11.

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.

12.

Let the applicant- Amar Kumar Gautam, 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./ 351BNSS 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.

13.

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

14.

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:- 11.3.2025 Siddhant (Justice Krishan Pahal) SIDDHANT SAHU SIDDHANT SAHU High Court of Judicature at Allahabad 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?

Indian Penal Code, 1860 — ss. 363, 366, 376; Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 — ss. 5(J)(ii), 6; Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — ss. 164, 313.

Which court decided this case, and when?

Allahabad High Court, on 11 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.

Why is this linked?

This is the original judgment text, reproduced from the public court record. Always verify it against the official record before relying on it in a filing — check it on Allahabad High Court or eCourts case status (search case no. CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. 45342 of 2024). ← Search more judgments