Allowed

Vineet Gaud v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC31 Aug 2020BAIL/23940/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a bail application filed by Vineet Gaud, an accused named later in the victim's statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C., in a rape case involving a minor. The court held that prima facie a case for bail was made out and directed the release on personal bond and sureties. Specific conditions regarding attendance and undertaking to seek no adjournments were imposed.

What did the court decide?

The applicant Vineet Gaud was granted bail on furnishing a personal bond and two local sureties subject to specific conditions of appearance and no adjournment.

Vineet Gaud Vs State of U.P. and Another — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Allahabad HC (2020)

¶1

Court No. - 75

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 23940 of 2020

¶3

Applicant :- Vineet Gaud Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Kamal Kaushal Upadhyay,Dur Vijay Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Ajit Singh,J.

¶5

Heard Shri Dur Vijay Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the entire record.

¶6

The present bail application has been filed by the applicant in Case Crime No. 10 of 2020 under Sections 363, 366, 376D IPC and Section 4 of POCSO Act, Police Station Dibai, District - Bulandshahar with the prayer to enlarge the applicant on bail.

¶7

The First Information Report of this incident was lodged by complainant/opposite party No. 2, Haneef, on 10.01.2020 against three accused persons namely Manoj, Raja, Nikki and one unknown. It was alleged in the First Information Report that the daughter of informant namely Tamanna aged about 17 years has absconded from house on 07.01.2020 with accused Manoj and they went into the house of one Bablia where three boys were already present. They committed rape upon her there. It has further been alleged in the First Information Report that the informant's daughter was sent to Delhi with Nikki on the assurance that he would reach there with money. On this information the matter was investigated by the police and accused persons were sent to jail.

¶8

The contention as raised at the Bar by learned counsel for the applicant is that applicant-accused was not named in the First Information Report and he has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is further submitted that there is no mention of the name of the present accused in the statement of the victim girl recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. The learned counsel has also submitted that the victim girl has named the present accused for the first time in her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. after a delay of about 10 days of the incident. The learned counsel has further submitted that the victim girl has gone to Delhi with co-accused Manoj and other boys named in the FIR out of her own sweet will and she is a consenting party. He has further submitted that the girl is about 17 years of age. It is further argued that the applicant is in jail since 30.01.2020 and that in case applicant is enlarged on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶9

Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail, but he has not disputed the fact that the victim girl has taken the name of the present accused for the first time in her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C.

¶10

Keeping in view the submission of learned counsel for the parties, period of detention of the applicant and all the attending facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, at this stage, prima facie, a case for bail has been made out.

¶11

The prayer for bail is granted. The application is allowed.

¶12

Let applicant Vineet Gaud involved in the aforesaid crime be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two local sureties to the satisfaction of court concerned subject to the following conditions:-

¶13

(1). The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence and 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;

¶14

(2). 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 of the Indian Penal Code;

¶15

(3). In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail and in order to secure his presence proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued and the applicant fails to appear before the Court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court may initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶16

(4). The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. If in the opinion of the trial court default of this condition is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of his bail and proceed against him in accordance with law.

¶17

The party shall file computer generated copy of such order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad, self attested by the learned counsel for the applicant alongwith a self attested identity proof of the said persons (preferably Aadhar Card) mentioning the mobile number (s) to which the said Aadhar Card is linked before the concerned Court/Authority/Official.

¶18

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.

¶19

Order Date :- 31.8.2020 LBY

Vineet Gaud v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vineet Gaud v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Narayan Singh Vs State of U.P.

Harish Chandra Vs State of U.P.

Geeta Devi Vs State of U.P.

Anand Vs State of U.P. and Another

Smt. Poonam Sharma Vs State of U.P. and Another

Girraj Vs State of U.P. and Another