Allowed

Vijendra Kashyap v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC21 Sept 2020BAIL/16918/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court allowed a third bail application in a POCSO and rape case. Relying on the prosecutrix's exculpatory testimony that she coerced her earlier statements, the court held it was a fit case for bail without expressing an opinion on merits.

What did the court decide?

The applicant is released on bail by executing a personal bond and furnishing two sureties each, subject to conditions precluding tampering, threat, or harassment.

Vijendra Kashyap Vs State of U.P. — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Allahabad HC (2020)

¶1

Court No. - 66

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 16918 of 2020

¶3

Applicant :- Vijendra Kashyap Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Purushottam Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble J.J. Munir,J.

¶5

This is a third bail application. The first application for bail being Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 49261 of 2018 was dismissed in default vide order dated 09.01.2019. The second bail application was rejected on merits by me vide order dated 11.03.2019 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application 4759 of 2019.

¶6

This is an application for bail on behalf of the applicant, Vijendra Kashyap in connection with Case Crime No. 380 of 2018, under Section 376 IPC and Section 6 POCSO Act, Police Station Kila, District Bareilly.

¶7

Heard Sri Purushottam Pandey, learned Counsel for the applicant and the learned A.G.A. appearing for the State. The submission of the learned Counsel for the applicant is that the though the prosecutrix has spoken inculpatory in her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. recorded during investigation, in the ongoing trial being Special Case No. 1016/2019 pending before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 9/Special Judge, POCSO Act, Bareilly

¶8

she has not at all supported prosecution. She has said that the applicant never ravished her. About her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C., she has said that she made that statement before the Magistrate under pressure from the police. She has also said about her statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. recorded by the police that she never made it. In her cross examination about the statement to the police, the witness has stated thus:

¶9

"ममेररा दररोगरा जजी नमे करोई बयरान नहहीं ललियरा थरा। गवराह करो उसकरा 161 सजीआरपजीसजी करा बयरान पढ़कर ससुनरायरा व ददखरायरा गयरा तरो उसमे दमेख व ससुन करगवराह नमे कहरा दक ममनमे ऐसरा करोई बयरान नहहीं ददयरा थरा। ककैसमे ललिख ललियरा वजह नहहीं बतरा सकतजी।"

¶10

Also her cross-examination she has stood by her testimony in the examination-in-chief that the applicant has never ravished her and also denied the suggestion that she was telling falsehood in Court or that she has been suborned.

¶11

Learned A.G.A. has opposed the bail plea but does not dispute that the prosecutrix has spoken exculpatory in the witness box.

¶12

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature of allegations, the gravity of the offence, the severity of punishment, the evidence appearing in the case, in particular, the fact that the prosecutrix has spoken exculpatory in the witness box, the fact that she has disowned her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. as one made under the pressure of the police, the fact that in the face of such evidence prima facie there is no justification to detain the applicant further pending trial, but without expressing any opinion on merits, this Court, finds it to be

¶13

a fit case for bail.

¶14

The bail application, accordingly, stands allowed .

¶15

Let the applicant, Vijendra Kashyap in connection with Case Crime No. 380 of 2018, under Section 376 IPC and Section 6 POCSO Act, Police Station Kila, District Bareilly be released on bail on executing his personal bond and furnishing two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Court concerned with the following conditions:

¶16

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

¶17

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

¶18

iii) The applicant shall appear on the date fixed by the Trial Court.

¶19

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

¶20

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.

¶21

(vi) The party shall file computer generated copy of such order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad.

¶22

(vii) The computer generated copy of such order shall be self attested by the counsel of the party concerned.

¶23

(viii) The concerned Court/Authority/Official shall verify the authenticity of such computerized copy of the order from the official website of High Court Allahabad and shall make a declaration of such verification in writing.

¶24

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

¶25

It is clarified that anything said in this order is limited to the purpose of determination of this bail application and will in no way be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. It is further clarified that the Trial Court shall be absolutely free to arrive at its independent conclusions on the basis of evidence led, unaffected by anything said in this order.

¶26

Order Date :- 21.9.2020

¶27

Deepak

Vijendra Kashyap v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vijendra Kashyap 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

Smt. Nidhi Jain and Another Vs State of U.P. and 8 Others

Rishik Lavania and Another Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Shahana Bano and Another Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

Abhishek Kumar Yadav Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Sahista and Another Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Rajrani @ Nazrain Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others