Allowed

Vijay Kumar @ Vijay Bhan v. State of U.P and Another

Allahabad HC28 Nov 2022BAIL/13977/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A criminal miscellaneous bail application was filed seeking enlargement in a case involving offences under IPC and POCSO. The High Court found it a fit case for bail, subject to specific conditions regarding court attendance and trial conduct, without commenting on the merits of the charges.

What did the court decide?

Released on bail by furnishing a personal bond and two sureties on conditions included in the order, including attendance at trial and prohibition of adjournment during evidence.

Vijay Kumar @ Vijay Bhan Vs State of U.P and… — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 76

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 13977 of 2021

¶3

Applicant :- Vijay Kumar @ Vijay Bhan Opposite Party :- State Of U.P And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Mani Shanker Pandey,Rajeev Kumar Saxena,Virendra Kumar Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Shekhar Kumar Yadav,J.

¶5

Rejoinder affidavit filed on behalf of the applicant, is taken on record.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA for the State and perused the record.

¶7

This bail application under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the applicant seeking enlargement on bail in Case Crime No. 395 of 2020, under Sections 363, 366, 376 IPC and 3/4 POCSO Act, Police Station Utaraon, District Allahabad/Prayagraj.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is further submitted that as per the medical report the age of the victim is about 16 to 18 years. It has further submitted that per the statements of the victim recorded under sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. she had gone with the applicant on her own sweet will and she has solemnized her marriage with the applicant and she wants to live with the applicant, which shows that the victim is a consenting party. The incident took place on 20.9.2020 and the FIR of the alleged incident has been lodged on 14.10.2020. There is delay of 24 days in lodging the FIR but there is no satisfactory explanation of this delay in lodging the FIR. The applicant has not committed the alleged offence. Offence under section 376 IPC is not made out against the applicant. The applicant has no concern with the alleged incident. He has further submitted that in case the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail. There is no criminal history of the applicant. The applicant is in jail since 24.10.2020.

¶9

On the other hand, learned A.G.A. opposes the application for bail.

¶10

Upon hearing learned counsel for the parties, perusal of record and considering the complicity of accused, severity of punishment as well as totality of facts and circumstances, at this stage without commenting on the merits of the case, I find it a

¶11

fit case for bail.

¶12

Let the applicant Vijay Kumar @ Vijay Bhan, who is involved in aforementioned case crime 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 issuing the release order, the sureties be verified.

¶13

(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.

¶14

(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 IPC.

¶15

(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 IPC.

¶16

(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 him in accordance with law.

¶17

(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.

¶18

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

¶19

It is made clear that observations made in granting bail to the applicant shall not in any way affect the learned trial Judge in forming his independent opinion based on the testimony of the witnesses.

¶20

Order Date :- 28.11.2022

¶21

¶22

Digitally signed by AFAQ AHMAD Date: 2022.11.28 16:19:30 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Vijay Kumar @ Vijay Bhan v. State of U.P and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vijay Kumar @ Vijay Bhan 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

Dharmendra Kumar Sonkar Vs State of U.P.

Atul Kumar Prajapti Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Aman Kumar Kashyap Vs State of U.P.

Akash Vs State of U.P.

Sanjeev Vs State of U.P.

Om Prakash @ O.P. Vs State of U.P.