Allowed

Vinod Kumar v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC6 Sept 2022BAIL/222/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court granted bail to the applicant in a rape case involving a minor under POCSO, IPC and other sections. The applicant must furnish a personal bond and sureties under strict conditions. The trial court was directed to conclude the trial within one year.

What did the court decide?

Appellant released on bail with personal bond, two sureties, and conditions prohibiting witness tampering and ensuring trial attendance; trial to conclude within one year.

Vinod Kumar Vs State of U.P. — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 69

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 222 of 2020

¶3

Applicant :- Vinod Kumar Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Pramod Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Ashwani Kumar Pathak

¶4

Hon'ble Siddharth,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Ashutosh Mishra, Advocate, holding brief of Sri Atul Shahi, learned counsels for the applicant; Sri Ashwani Kumar Pathak, learned counsel for the informant; learned AGA for the State and perused the material placed on record.

¶6

The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant, Vinod Kumar, with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No.281 of 2019, under Sections 376, 504, 506 IPC and 3/4 POCSO Act, Police Station Basgaon, DistrictGorakhpur, during pendency of trial.

¶7

There is allegation of rape of a minor against the applicant in the FIR.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the victim as well as the informant have been examined before the court below and they have been declared hostile. The applicant has been falsely implicated in this case. He has no criminal history to his credit and is languishing in jail since 15.8.2019. The trial in the aforesaid case is not likely to be concluded in near future.

¶9

Per contra learned A.G.A. and learned counsel for the informant have opposed the prayer for bail of the applicant by contending that the innocence of the applicant cannot be adjudged at pre trial stage, therefore, he does not deserves any indulgence. In case the applicant is released on bail he will again indulge in similar activities and will misuse the liberty of bail.

¶10

Having considered the submissions of the parties noted above, larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India, Satendra Kumar Antil Vs. C.B.I. & Another, passed in S.L.P. (Crl.) No. 5191 of 2021 , and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, let the applicant involved in the aforesaid 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 with the following conditions that :-

¶11

(i) The applicant shall not tamper with the evidence or threaten the witnesses.

¶12

(ii) 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.

¶13

(iii) The applicant shall remain present before the Trial Court on each date fixed, either personally or as directed by the Court. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the Trial Court may proceed against him under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶14

(iv) In case the applicant misuse the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence, proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued and the applicants fail 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.

¶15

(v) 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.

¶16

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

¶17

Identity, status and residence proof of the applicant and sureties be verified by the court concerned before the bonds are accepted.

¶18

The court below is directed to conclude the trial against the applicant, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of one year from the date of production of certified copy of this order.

¶19

Order Date :- 6.9.2022 Ruchi Agrahari

¶20

Digitally signed by RUCHI AGRAHARI Date: 2022.09.06 16:44:40 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Vinod Kumar v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vinod Kumar 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

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Hari Shanker and Another Vs State of U.P.

Rahul Sharma @ Bholu Sharma Vs State of U.P.

Mahfooj Alam Vs State of U.P.

Pramod Vs State of U.P.

Aftab @ Raja Vs State of U.P.

Subhash @ Narendra Vs State of U.P.