Allowed

Vijay Kumar @ Mangru v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC2 Apr 2018BAIL/5624/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court granted bail to the applicant, Vijay Kumar @ Mangru, who was arrested under sections 376, 506 IPC and 3/4 POCSO. The applicant was allowed bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties, subject to several conditions regarding his conduct before the trial court and attendance at proceedings.

What did the court decide?

Applicant to be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties, subject to five specific conditions regarding attendance and trial conduct.

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

¶1

Court No. - 54

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 5624 of 2018

¶3

Applicant :- Vijay Kumar @ Mangru Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Atul Kumar,Indra Kumar Chaturvedi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Rahul Chaturvedi,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Indra Kumar Chaturvedi, learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA and perused the record.

¶6

Contention raised at the Bar is that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. According to the radiological report the prosecutrix is aged about 20 years. It has been further submitted that the prosecutrix is a consenting party. As per her own statement recorded under section 164 Cr.P.C it seems that she keep on dancing on the tune of the applicant and met him many a time in past. On earlier occasions too she was found in the company of the applicant in a compromising state. Again when the applicant called her, she went to meet her. Learned counsel for the applicant states that from her aforesaid conduct, it establishes the fact beyond iota of doubt that the prosecutrix is a consenting party.The applicant is in jail since 01.12.2017, having no criminal antecedents to his credit.

¶7

Learned AGA opposed the prayer for bail but

¶8

could not dispute the aforesaid facts and the legal submissions as argued by the learned counsel for the applicant.

¶9

Keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, I am of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail.

¶10

Let the applicant Vijay Kumar @ Mangru, involved in Case Crime No. 1415 of 2017, under sections 376, 506 IPC and 3/4 POCSO Act, P.S. Mahuli, District Sant Kabir Nagar be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions which are being imposed in the interest of justice:-

¶11

(i) THE APPLICANT SHALL FILE AN UNDERTAKING TO THE EFFECT THAT HE SHALL NOT SEEK ANY ADJOURNMENT ON THE DATE FIXED FOR EVIDENCE WHEN THE WITNESSES ARE PRESENT IN COURT. IN CASE OF DEFAULT OF THIS CONDITION, IT SHALL BE OPEN FOR THE TRIAL COURT TO TREAT IT AS ABUSE OF LIBERTY OF BAIL AND PASS ORDERS IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW.

¶12

(ii) THE APPLICANT SHALL REMAIN PRESENT BEFORE THE TRIAL COURT ON EACH DATE FIXED, EITHER PERSONALLY OR THROUGH HIS COUNSEL. IN CASE OF HIS ABSENCE, WITHOUT SUFFICIENT CAUSE, THE TRIAL COURT MAY PROCEED AGAINST HIM UNDER SECTION 229-A IPC.

¶13

(iii) IN CASE, THE APPLICANT MISUSES THE LIBERTY OF BAIL DURING TRIAL AND IN ORDER TO SECURE HIS PRESENCE PROCLAMATION UNDER SECTION 82 CR.P.C., MAY BE ISSUED AND IF APPLICANT FAILS TO APPEAR BEFORE THE COURT ON THE DATE FIXED IN SUCH PROCLAMATION, THEN, THE TRIAL COURT SHALL INITIATE PROCEEDINGS AGAINST HIM, IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW, UNDER SECTION 174-A IPC.

¶14

(iv) 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. 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.

¶15

(v) THE TRIAL COURT MAY MAKE ALL POSSIBLE EFFORTS/ENDEAVOUR AND TRY TO CONCLUDE THE TRIAL WITHIN A PERIOD OF ONE YEAR AFTER THE RELEASE OF THE APPLICANT.

¶16

However, it is made clear that any wilful violation of above conditions by the applicant, shall have serious repercussion on his bail so granted by this court. Order Date :- 2.4.2018

¶17

shailesh

Vijay Kumar @ Mangru v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vijay Kumar @ Mangru 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

Vikas Vs State of U.P.

Vinod Sao Vs State of U.P.

Boby Alias Pradeep Vs State of U.P.

Aslam Vs Sate of U.P.

Somveer Vs State of U.P.

Ajeet Vs State of U.P.