Allowed

Virendra v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC12 Nov 2018BAIL/39153/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a bail application regarding rape and POSCO-related offenses, the court allowed bail noting a dispute over the prosecutrix's age mixed with an exculpatory statement. The applicant is to be released on personal bond and two sureties subject to standard conditions.

What did the court decide?

Release on bail executing personal bond and furnishing two sureties with conditions against tampering and harassment.

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

¶1

Court No. - 53

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 39153 of 2018

¶3

Applicant :- Virendra Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Sheetala Prasad Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Shailendra Kumar Pandey

¶4

Hon'ble J.J. Munir,J.

¶5

Supplementary affidavit filed today, is taken on record.

¶6

This is a bail application on behalf of Virendra in connection with Case Crime No.62 of 2018, under Sections 363, 366A, 376 I.P.C. and 5/6 of POCSO Act, P.S. Gaur, District Basti.

¶7

Heard Sri S.P.Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri S.K.Pandey, learned counsel for the complainant and Sri M.P.S.Gaur, learned AGA along with Sri Rohit Pandey, learned counsel on behalf of the State.

¶8

The submission of learned counsel for the applicant is that though the prosecutrix has been claimed in the first information report to be 14 years old going by the medico legal estimation of her age done by a Board of Doctors, she has been found to be about 18 years on the basis of an ossification test. In this regard, learned counsel for the applicant has invited the attention of the Court to the medico legal certificate of age dated 18.05.2018, issued by the office of the Chief Medical Officer, Basti, signed by five doctors constituting the Medical Board including the Chief Medical Officer. Learned counsel further submits that going by the aforesaid age, the prosecutrix is a major and the provisions of POCSO Act would not be attracted. Learned counsel has taken the Court through the statement of the prosecutrix recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. filed along with a supplementary affidavit, being a statement dated 19.05.2018 recorded by the Judicial Magistrate. He submits that a reading of the said statement clearly indicates that the parties were into a relationship and had consensual sexual relations. It is also indicated in the statement as submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that the prosexutrix accompanied the applicant on the date of occurrence and stayed with him for a considerable period of time.

¶9

Learned counsel for the complainant and the learned AGA have opposed the prayer for bail and pointed out that the statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C., is not exculpatory. It does show hints about the prosexutrix being ravished.

¶10

Considering the overall facts and circumstances, the nature of allegations, the gravity of offence, the severity of punishment, the evidence appearing in the case, in particular, the fact that prima facie the prosexutrix is major and the largely exculpatory statement of the prosecutrix recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., but without expressing any opinion on merits, this Court finds it to be a fit case for bail.

¶11

Accordingly, the bail application stands allowed.

¶12

Let the applicant Virendra in connection with Case Crime No.62 of 2018, under Sections 363, 366A, 376 I.P.C. and 5/6 of POCSO Act, P.S. Gaur, District Basti be released on bail on executing a personal bond and furnishing two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:

¶13

i) The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence.

¶14

ii) The applicant shall not threaten or harass the prosecution witnesses.

¶15

iii) The applicant shall appear on the date fixed by the trial court.

¶16

iv) The applicant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which the applicant is accused, or suspected of the commission.

¶17

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 such person from disclosing facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶18

In case of default of any of the conditions enumerated above, the complainant would be free to move an application for cancellation of bail before this Court.

¶19

Order Date :- 12.11.2018

¶20

R./

Virendra v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Virendra 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Chetan Chauhan Vs State of U.P.

Bablu Kumar Alias Suraj Kumar Vs State of U.P.

Vishal Vs State of U.P.

Veeran Yadav Vs State of U.P.

Mewa Lal Rajbhar Vs State of U.P.

Vivek Babu Vs State of U.P.