Dismissed

Vijay v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC22 Dec 2021BAIL/9696/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court rejected a bail application filed by Vijay in a POCSO case alleging enticement and sexual assault of a minor. The present applicant held that there were inconsistencies in prosecutrix statements and likelihood of tampering. However, recognizing the heinous nature of sexual assault on a minor and the likelihood of tampering with evidence, the court denied bail without commenting on the m

What did the court decide?

Bail application rejected.

Vijay Vs State of U.P. and Another — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 75

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 9696 of 2020

¶3

Applicant :- Vijay Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Shashi Kumar Mishra,Hinchh Lal Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Ram Krishna Gautam,J.

¶5

Heard over bail application moved by the applicant, Vijay, in Case Crime No. 145 of 2019, under Sections-363, 366, 376 I.P.C. and 3/4 of Protection of Children From Sexual Offence Act, Police station-Jaithra, District-Etah.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned AGA representing the State. Perused the record.

¶7

Learned counsel for the applicant argued that the applicant is innocent; he has been falsely implicated in this very case crime number and is languishing in jail since 13.06.2019; this First Information Report was delayed with no cogent reason; prosecutrix is at variance in her statements under Sections 161 as well as 164 Cr.P.C. it was a voluntarily fleeing of the prosecutrix; there is no likelihood of applicant's fleeing from course of justice or tempering with evidence, in case of release of bail; hence bail has been prayed for.

¶8

Learned learned AGA has vehemently opposed.

¶9

Having heard learned counsel for both the parties, gone through the material placed on record it is apparent that informant got this case lodged for missing of her daughter, who was said to be of 15 years; in medical age determination too the age has been fixed 14 to 15 years; prosecutrix is minor; her statement under Section 161 as well as 164 Cr.P.C. is of enticing and taking by the applicant; the same is fully intact; sexual assault is very well said in it.

¶10

Considering all those facts and circumstances of the case; heinousness of offence of rape with a minor girl; aim and object of Protection of Children From Sexual Offence Act, likelihood of tampering with evidence in case of release on bail as well as likelihood of fleeing from course of justice,

¶11

but without commenting on merit of the case, there appears to be no ground for bail.

¶12

Accordingly, this bail application is rejected.

¶13

However, trial Court is directed to conclude the trial strictly in accordance with Section 309 Cr.P.C., without granting any unnecessary adjournment to the parties. Order Date :- 22.12.2021 Deepak/

Vijay v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vijay 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

Manju @ Amit Vs State of U.P.

Upendra @ Uppa Vs State of U.P.

Arvind Vs State of U.P. and Another

Shailesh Yadav @ Nokhai Yadav Vs State of U.P. and Another

Pushpendra Vs State of U.P.

Kanhaiya Vs State of U.P. and Another