Allowed

Smt. Vimlesh v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC15 May 2019BAIL/2418/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Hon'ble Ram Krishna Gautam, J. considered a bail application in a serious case alleging rape and sexual assault. The court granted bail, noting the prosecutrix turned hostile during trial and the FIR was delayed, while ensuring standard bail conditions were met. The court reserved comment on legal recourse regarding the prosecutrix's hostility to the trial judge.

What did the court decide?

Application allowed. Applicant released on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties subject to conditions of not tampering with evidence, no criminal activity, not intimidating witnesses, and regul

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

¶1

Court No. - 79

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 2418 of 2019

¶3

Applicant :- Smt. Vimlesh Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Akhilesh Srivastava,Saksham Srivastava

¶4

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Ram Krishna Gautam,J.

¶6

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

¶7

By means of this application, the applicant Smt. Vimlesh, who is involved in Case Crime No. 795 of 2018, under Sections 354, 354Ka, 328, 323, 376, 506, 34 I.P.C. & Section 3/4 Protection of Children From Sexual Offence Act, 2012, P.S. Delhigate, District Aligarh, is seeking enlargement on bail.

¶8

It has been submitted by learned counsel for applicant that applicant is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in this very case crime number by her own daughter. The first information report was got lodged on 24.08.2018 for an occurrence said to be of 10.06.2018, whereas prosecutrix / informant was in illicit relation with a boy, which was being prohibited by accused-applicant, for which this false implication was there. Accused-applicant is languishing in jail since 25.08.2018. Under medical examination, prosecutrix has been held to be of 17 years. Prosecutrix in her statement recorded during course of trial as PW-1 has resiled from all her statement. Thereby, she has been declared hostile. Hence bail has been prayed for.

¶9

Learned A.G.A. vehemently opposed the prayer for bail, but could not dispute the fact that prosecutrix turned hostile during trial as PW-1 and not supported the prosecution as well as accusation against present accused-applicant.

¶10

Perusal of first information report reveals that it was delayed one. The statement of prosecutrix recorded under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. was with variation. Her statement recorded during course of trial as PW-1 was entirely against case of prosecution, in which she has categorically said that she got this case lodged upon saying of others.

¶11

Considering the rival submissions, nature of accusation,

¶12

severity of punishment in case of conviction and nature of 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.

¶13

Let the applicant Smt. Vimlesh , 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:

¶14

The applicant will not tamper with the evidence.

¶15

The applicant will not indulge in any criminal activity.

¶16

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

¶17

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.

¶18

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

¶19

It is being mentioned that concerned trial Judge during trial will take legal recourse about the alleged hostility or misstatement for lodging criminal prosecution and thereby resiled previous statement in accordance with law.

¶20

Order Date :- 15.5.2019 NS

Smt. Vimlesh v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Vimlesh 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

Shailendra Rai Vs State of U.P.

Lalit Mohan Bhatt Vs State of U.P.

Kishan Raikawar Vs State of U.P.

Mahesh Kumar Vs State of U.P.

Ramji Turha Vs State of U.P.

Jitendra Kumar Vs State of U.P.