Allowed

Vijay Kumar v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC6 Aug 2018BAIL/28839/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The single-judge bench released the applicant on bail in a rape and POCSO case where the medical report allegedly did not confirm sexual assault and the FIR version was found doubtful, even without expressing opinion on merits.

What did the court decide?

The applicant Vitaj Kumar released on personal bond and two sureties to satisfy the court with conditions to not tamper evidence, intimidate witness and appear before trial court.

Vijay Kumar Vs State of U.P. — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 52

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 28839 of 2018

¶3

Applicant :- Vijay Kumar Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Rajeev Kumar Saxena Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Rajul Bhargava,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. and perused the record.

¶6

The present bail application has been filed by the applicant in Case Crime No. 168 of 2018, u/s 376, 452 IPC and 3/4 POCSO Act, P.S. Arvakatara, District Auraiya with the prayer for enlarging him on bail.

¶7

It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that the version setup in the F.I.R., which was lodged after two days of the incident does not appear to be truthful and worthy of credence. It is argued that as per the F.I.R, on the date of incident mother, sister and brother of the prosecutrix were sleeping on the terrace and the applicant entered the house and took her in another room and closed her mouth by cloth and then committed rape, on her raising alarm, her grandfather reached there and the applicant after pushing him fled away. Learned counsel states that the medical report of the prosecutrix does not support the version of rape inasmuch as the doctor has opined that the medical examination does not confirm sexual assault and as per the medical report, the prosecutrix is aged about 18 years.

¶8

Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail. However he could not point out anything material to the contrary.

¶9

In view of the facts and circumstances of the case and submissions made by learned counsel for the applicant and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case the applicant is entitled to be released on bail.

¶10

Let the applicant Vijay Kumar involved in the aforesaid case crime number 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 with the following conditions:-

¶11

(i) The applicant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.

¶12

(ii) The applicant will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness.

¶13

(iii)The applicant will appear before the trial court on the date fixed.

¶14

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the court below shall be at liberty to cancel the bail.

¶15

Order Date :- 6.8.2018

¶16

Dhirendra/

Vijay Kumar v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vijay Kumar v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shiv Kumar Chauhan Vs State of U.P.

Gabbar Vs State of U.P.

Arvind Alias Kallu Vs State of U.P.

Sandeep Mishra Vs State of U.P.

Javed Vs State of U.P.

Srikrishn @ Ramkrishn Vs State of U.P.