Allowed

Vinay Kumar v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC7 May 2019BAIL/16142/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a bail application under Sections 363, 366, 376 IPC and POCSO, the court allowed bail due to a substantial discrepancy in the prosecutrix statement between Section 161 Cr.P.C. and Section 164 Cr.P.C., where she initially denied kidnapping or rape. Bail is granted with a personal bond and two sureties.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each, subject to conditions preventing tampering, criminal activity, and intimidation of witnesses.

Vinay Kumar Vs State of U.P. — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 79

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 16142 of 2019

¶3

Applicant :- Vinay Kumar Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Aditya Kumar Tripathi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Deepak Singh Patel

¶4

Hon'ble Ram Krishna Gautam,J.

¶5

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

¶6

By means of this application, the applicant Vinay Kumar, who is involved in Case Crime No. 565 of 2018, under Sections 363, 366, 376, 506 I.P.C. and 3/4 Protection of Children From Sexual Offence Act, P.S. Dibiyapur, District Auraiya, is seeking enlargement on bail.

¶7

It has been submitted by learned counsel for applicant that applicant is innocent; he has been falsely implicated in this very case crime number; prosecutrix in her statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. has categorically said that she was at home of her maternal aunt upon her own volition and there was no kidnapping or rape by anyone; this was said before medical officer too, written in medical examination report; subsequently, under Section 164 Cr.P.C. she has changed her version and said about taking and commission of rape by accused-applicant, whereas she was major and has refused to get medically examined, hence bail has been prayed for.

¶8

Learned counsel for informant and learned A.G.A. vehemently opposed the prayer for bail.

¶9

Having heard learned counsel for both sides and considered the material placed on record. It is apparent that prosecutrix in her statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. has categorically said that she was at home of her maternal aunt upon her own volition and there was no kidnapping or rape by anyone. This was said before medical officer too, written in medical examination report. Subsequently, under Section 164 Cr.P.C. she has changed her version and said about taking and commission of rape by accused-applicant. The prosecutrix is major.

¶10

Considering the rival submissions, nature of accusation, severity of punishment in case of conviction and nature of

¶11

supporting evidence, reasonable apprehension of tampering with the witness and prima facie case, without expressing any opinion on merit of the case, this bail application is allowed.

¶12

Let the applicant Vinay Kumar , involved in above mentioned case crime number be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of court concerned, subject to following conditions:

¶13

The applicant will not tamper with the evidence.

¶14

The applicant will not indulge in any criminal activity.

¶15

The applicant will not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witnesses and co-operate in the trial.

¶16

The applicant will appear regularly on each and every date fixed by the trial court unless his personal appearance is exempted through counsel by the court concerned.

¶17

In the event of breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the court below will be at liberty to proceed to cancel his bail.

¶18

Order Date :- 7.5.2019 NS

Vinay Kumar v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vinay 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

Anuj Kumar Vs State of U.P.

Pawan Kumar Sharma Vs State of U.P.

Raju Lal Vs State of U.P.

Akash Vs State of U.P.

Aourangjeb Vs State of U.P.

Anuj Vs State of U.P.