Allowed

Vijay Patel @ Vanshraj Patel v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC17 Dec 2019BAIL/28197/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court considered a bail application filed by the applicant alleged to be implicated in offences including rape and kidnapping under the POCSO Act and IPC. The Court allowed the bail, noting contradictions in the victim's statement and the duration of custody, without expressing an opinion on the merits.

What did the court decide?

Released on bail subject to furnishing a personal bond and two local sureties each of the like amount, with conditions against tampering with evidence and pressurizing witnesses.

Vijay Patel @ Vanshraj Patel Vs State of U.P. — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 84

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 28197 of 2019

¶3

Applicant :- Vijay Patel @ Vanshraj Patel Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Ajay Kumar Srivastava,Swati Agrawal Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Raj Beer Singh,J.

¶5

Counter affidavit filed by the learned A.G.A., is taken on record.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. None has appeared for complainant despite service of notice.

¶7

The present bail application has been filed by the applicant in case crime No. 150 of 2018, under Sections 363, 366, 376D, 120B IPC and Section 3/4,5,6,7,8 POCSO Act and 3(2)(iv) SC/ST Act, P.S. Line Bazar, District Jaunpur with the prayer to enlarge the applicant on bail.

¶8

It has been argued by the learned counsel for applicant that applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. The applicant is not named in the FIR and that co-accused Ranjeet Harijan, who was named in FIR, has already been granted bail by co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 12.07.2018, passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 25094 of 2018. Learned counsel submitted that version of victim girl against the applicant suffers from serious contradictions and the same is not reliable. It was pointed out that as per recovery memo, victim girl was recovered with coaccused Ranjeet Harijan and Ashish Harijan and as it was stated that applicant Vijay Patel @ Vanshraj Patel has ran away from

¶9

the spot and that her medical examination was conducted on the same day, whereas in her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., she has stated that applicant has taken her and coaccused Ranjeet Harijan to Court compound for solemnizing their marriage and after that Ashish Harijan and Ranjeet Harijan were apprehended by police and she was enticed away by the applicant thereafter she was subjected to rape by him. Learned counsel submitted that in view of recovery memo and medical examination of victim girl, which was conducted on same day i.e. on 11.04.2018, the version of victim girl regarding her rape by applicant is false and baseless. It was further submitted that applicant is languishing in jail since 31.05.2018 and in case, applicant is enlarged on bail, the applicant will not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶10

Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail and argued that victim girl has made allegations of rape against the applicant and that as per medical examination, age of victim girl is 17 years. However, the alleged contradiction between recovery memo, medical examination and version of victim girl, has not been disputed.

¶11

Considering the submissions of learned counsel for the parties, facts of the case, nature of allegation and period of custody, gravity of offence and all attending facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court is of the opinion that it is a fit case for bail. Hence, the bail application is hereby allowed.

¶12

Let the applicant Vijay Patel @ Vanshraj Patel involved in the aforesaid crime be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two local sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of court concerned subject to the following conditions:

¶13

The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence.

¶14

The applicant shall not pressurize the prosecution witnesses.

¶15

The applicant shall appear on the date fixed by the trial Court.

¶16

The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case.

¶17

Order Date :- 17.12.2019 A. Tripathi

Vijay Patel @ Vanshraj Patel v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vijay Patel @ Vanshraj Patel 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

Rahul Pandit Vs State of U.P.

Mulayam Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ritesh Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another

Shailendra Tripathi Vs State of U.P.

Umesh Vs State of U.P.

Ravi Alias Ravi Shankar Vs State of U.P. and Another