Allowed

Vovi v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC14 Dec 2020BAIL/34594/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Criminal Misc. Bail Application sought enlargement on bail for an accused facing charges under Sections 363, 366, 376 IPC and POCSO. The court allowed bail, noting the victim's marital status and age, and imposed strict conditions regarding court presence and trial completion.

What did the court decide?

The applicant is released on bail on a personal bond and two sureties each, subject to strict conditions including personal appearance before the trial court and conclusion of trial within one year.

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

¶1

Court No. - 67

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 34594 of 2020

¶3

Applicant :- Vovi Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Sanjay Singh Sengar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Rahul Chaturvedi,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Sanjay Singh Sengar, learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned A.G.A for the State and perused the record.

¶6

By means of this application, the applicant who is involved in Case Crime No. 19 of 2020, under Sections 363, 366, 376 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 POCSO Act, Police Station- Panwadi, DistrictMahoba is seeking enlargement on bail during the trial. The applicant is in jail since 9.8.2020.

¶7

Contention raised by learned counsel for the applicant is that the victim is now wedded wife of the applicant. She is now mother of a small kid. Though, in the F.I.R. the father of the victim has mentioned her age about 15 years, but ossification test of the victim indicates that on the date of incident she was aged about 19 years. In the statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., she has reiterated that she was in an affair with the applicant and on 19.2.2020 she joined the company of applicant on her own volition and accord and got married in temple and since then they are residing as husband and wife. During the course of argument, learned counsel for the applicant informed that the victim has delivered a baby.

¶8

Learned A.G.A opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the aforesaid facts.

¶9

Keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused and submissions of learned counsel for the parties, without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, I am of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail.

¶10

Let the applicant- Vovi , who is involved in Case Crime No. 19 of 2020, under Sections 363, 366, 376 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 POCSO Act, Police Station- Panwadi, District- Mahoba, be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions. Further, before

¶11

issuing the release order, the sureties be verified.

¶12

(i) THE APPLICANT SHALL FILE AN UNDERTAKING TO THE EFFECT THAT HE SHALL NOT SEEK ANY ADJOURNMENT ON THE DATE FIXED FOR EVIDENCE WHEN 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.

¶13

(ii) THE APPLICANT SHALL REMAIN PRESENT BEFORE THE TRIAL COURT ON EACH DATE FIXED, EITHER PERSONALLY OR THROUGH HIS COUNSEL. IN CASE OF HER ABSENCE, WITHOUT SUFFICIENT CAUSE, THE TRIAL COURT MAY PROCEED AGAINST HER UNDER SECTION 229-A I.P.C.

¶14

(iii) IN CASE, THE APPLICANT MISUSES THE LIBERTY OF BAIL DURING TRIAL AND IN ORDER TO SECURE HIS PRESENCE PROCLAMATION UNDER SECTION 82 CR.P.C., MAY BE ISSUED AND IF APPLICANT FAILS TO APPEAR BEFORE THE COURT ON THE DATE FIXED IN SUCH PROCLAMATION, THEN, THE TRIAL COURT SHALL INITIATE PROCEEDINGS AGAINST HIM, IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW, UNDER SECTION 174-A I.P.C.

¶15

(iv) THE APPLICANT SHALL REMAIN PRESENT, IN PERSON, BEFORE THE TRIAL COURT ON DATES FIXED FOR (1) OPENING OF THE CASE, (2) FRAMING OF CHARGE AND (3) RECORDING OF STATEMENT UNDER SECTION 313 Cr.P.C. IF IN THE OPINION OF THE TRIAL COURT ABSENCE OF THE APPLICANT IS DELIBERATE OR WITHOUT SUFFICIENT CAUSE, THEN IT SHALL BE OPEN FOR THE TRIAL COURT TO TREAT SUCH DEFAULT AS ABUSE OF LIBERTY OF BAIL AND PROCEED AGAINST HER IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW.

¶16

(v) THE TRIAL COURT MAY MAKE ALL POSSIBLE EFFORTS/ENDEAVOUR AND TRY TO CONCLUDE THE TRIAL WITHIN A PERIOD OF ONE YEAR AFTER THE RELEASE OF THE APPLICANT.

¶17

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.

¶18

Since the bail application has been decided under extra-ordinary

¶19

circumstances, thus in the interest of justice following additional conditions are being imposed just to facilitate the applicant to be released on bail forthwith. Needless to mention that these additional conditions are imposed to cope with emergent condition-:

¶20

The applicant shall be enlarged on bail on execution of personal bond without sureties till normal functioning of the courts is restored. The accused will furnish sureties to the satisfaction of the court below within a month after normal functioning of the courts are restored.

¶21

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

¶22

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

¶23

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

Order Date :- 14.12.2020 Vikas

Vovi v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vovi 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Devanand Yadav Vs State of U.P.

Ramesh Vs State of U.P. and Another

Arajun Shah @ Pauaa Shah Vs State of U.P.

Ramasre Yadav Vs State of U.P.

Raja @ Hani @ Abhimanyu Yadav Vs State of U.P.

Kadeer Vs State of U.P.