Allowed

Vikki v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC6 Aug 2021CRLA/419/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the criminal appeal and set aside the bail rejections dated 05.01.2021 and 24.02.2021. It directed the release of the appellant on personal and surety bonds with specific conditions to ensure his presence for evidence and trial sessions.

What did the court decide?

Impugned bail rejection orders set aside; appellant released on bail with sureties and conditions to attend trial proceedings.

Vikki Vs State of U.P. and Another — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 50

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 419 of 2021

¶3

Appellant :- Vikki Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Appellant :- Ramesh Kumar Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Jaysingh Yadav

¶4

Hon'ble Arvind Kumar Mishra-I,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material available on record.

¶6

This Criminal Appeal under Section 14-A (2) of SC/ST Act as Amended, has been preferred by the appellant with the prayer to set aside the orders dated 05.01.2021 and 24.02.2021 passed by Special Judge SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act, / Additional Sessions Judge, Ghaziabad, in Case Crime No. 667 of 2020, under Sections 376, 506, 509 I.P.C. and 3(2)(V) SC/ST Act, 5 (L) 6(1) POCSO Act and 67 Information Technology Act, P.S. Khoda, District Ghaziabad.

¶7

Contention, in brief, is that entire episode is nothing but an expression of frustration by the informant, who happens to be a prosecutrix. She was having her relationship with the appellant. It so happened that when everyone came to know about their relationship including family members of the presecutrix, false first information report was lodged by the prosecutrix. It is admitted to the prosecutrix in her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. that she was having relationship with the appellant for the last 3-4 years and whimsical manner in committing rape by itself is indicative of fact that consensual relationship was existing between the appellant and the prosecutrix. The incident is alleged to have taken place on 28.11.2020, whereas, the date of birth of the prosecutrix, as per academic record, is 18.11.2002. The statement of the prosecutrix was recorded at belated stage not just after lodging of the first information report and it is wholly tutored and improved one. In case the appellant is admitted to bail, there is no possibility

¶8

of his absconding or misusing the liberty of bail. The appellant has no criminal history and is languishing in jail since 10.12.2020.

¶9

Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of the appellant.

¶10

I have considered the rival submissions so made and having gone through the entire record including the order by which, bail application of the appellant has been rejected, impugned herein this appeal.

¶11

Nothing convincing has been argued on behalf of the complainant/State so as to justify and sustain the order passed by the court below rejecting the bail application of the appellant.

¶12

Thus, in view of the above and having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view the evidence, complicity of accused, I am of the view that the appellant has made out a case for bail.

¶13

Accordingly, this appeal is allowed and the impugned orders dated 05.01.2021 and 24.02.2021, rejecting the bail of the appellant is set aside.

¶14

Let the accused-appellant Vikki involved in the aforesaid case crime number for the aforesaid offences be released on bail on his furnishing personal bonds and two sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of Court concerned with the following conditions:-

¶15

(i) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates 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.

¶16

(ii) 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.

¶17

(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. is issued and the 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 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶18

(iv) 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 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 him in accordance with law.

¶19

Order Date :- 6.8.2021

¶20

rkg

Vikki v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vikki 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

Hariram and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Smt.Pooran Devi @ Munni Devi Vs State of U.P.

Mujammil Vs State of U.P.

Sukhveer Vs State of U.P. and Another

Uttam Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another

Dharmraj Vs State of U.P. and Another