Allowed

Vipin Kumar Dixit @ Chhotu (Second Bail) v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC14 Jul 2022/7149/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a second bail application filed by an accused charged with atrocities against a child under POCSO and IPC. Considering the long incarceration and the fact the offence is triable by a Magistrate, the court granted bail without commenting on the merits.

What did the court decide?

Released on bail by furnishing a personal bond and two sureties of the like amount subject to strict conditions regarding court attendance and no adjournments.

Vipin Kumar Dixit @ Chhotu (Second Bail) Vs… — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 10

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 7149 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Vipin Kumar Dixit @ Chhotu (Second Bail) Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Shishir Pradhan Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar Singh,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Mr.G.D. Bhatt, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶6

2. This is second bail application. The present bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicant seeking bail in FIR No.0021 of 2020, under Sections 363 and 377 IPC and Section 5/6 The Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act lodged at Police Station Kotwali Lalganj, District Raebareli

¶7

3. Allegation against the accused-applicant is with respect to sodomizing of an eight years old child; the child/victim has supported the prosecution case in his statements recorded under Sections 161 and 164 CrPC; even in the medical report, it is observed that sticky material is present in anus.

¶8

4. Mr.Shishir Pradhan, learned counsel for the accused-applicant submits that the accused-applicant was 19 years of age at the time of commission of the offence. He submits that the accused-applicant has been in jail since 16.01.2020. Thus, he has been in jail for around 2 and a half years. He also submits that trial has not proceeded at all after framing of the charge, which was framed on 08.09.2021.

¶9

5. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, long incarceration of the accused-applicant in jail and also taking into consideration the fact that the offence is triable by the Magistrate, without expressing any opinion on the merit of the case, I find it to be a fit case for granting bail.

¶10

6. Let applicant Vipin Kumar Dixit @ Chhotu be released on bail in the aforesaid case on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the Magistrate/Court concerned, subject to following conditions :- (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.

¶11

(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.

¶12

(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.

¶13

(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.

¶14

Order Date :- 14.7.2022 prateek

¶15

Digitally signed by PRATEEK ARORA Date: 2022.07.14 18:12:00 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Vipin Kumar Dixit @ Chhotu (Second Bail) v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vipin Kumar Dixit @ Chhotu (Second Bail) v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 3 Others

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

Mushtaque Ali Vs State of U.P. and Ors.

Dr. Hargovind Bhargava and 3 Ors. Vs State of U.P.

Rafiq Ahamad Vs State of U.P.Thru.Addl.Chief Secy.Home and Others

Santosh Kumar Vs State of U.P. and Ors.

Surendra Vikram Singh @ Punjabi Singh and Ors. Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Ishwar Chandra Agarwal Ishwar Chandra Agarwal @ Babia Agarw Vs the State of U.P Thru C.B.I and Anr.