Allowed

Vinod v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC24 Jun 2022BAIL/24024/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a bail application under POCSO Act, Hon’ble Sameer Jain, J. held that based on medical certificates showing the prosecutrix was over 18 and statements suggesting voluntary cohabitation, the applicant is entitled to bail. A personal bond and two sureties were ordered, with strict conditions of compliance and presence in court.

What did the court decide?

Released on bail by furnishing personal bond and two sureties with strict conditions regarding court attendance and conduct.

Vinod Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 47

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 24024 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Vinod Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Manoj Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Sameer Jain,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Arvind Kumar Srivastava, holding brief of Sri Manoj Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicant; Sri Vinod Kumar Rai, learned AGA for the State and perused the record of the case.

¶6

By way of present application, applicant made a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No. 207 of 2020 (in S.T. No. 123 of 2021), under Sections 363, 366, 376 IPC and Section 3/4 POCSO Act, Police Station Gurusahaiganj, District Kannauj, during the pendency of trial before the court below.

¶7

Learned AGA informed the Court that as the matter pertains to the provisions of POCSO Act, therefore, on the instructions of Court, notices have already been served upon opposite party No. 2 on 3.6.2022. As notices have already been served upon opposite party No. 2 on 3.6.2022 but despite service of notices, no one appeared on his behalf, therefore, the present bail application is being heard.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that applicant has been falsely implicated in the present matter by the father of the prosecutrix. He further submitted that applicant neither enticed away the prosecutrix nor committed rape with her. He further submitted that even from the perusal of the statement of prosecutrix recorded under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C., it cannot be said that applicant committed rape with her. He further submitted that rather both the statement of prosecutrix clearly shows that the prosecutrix herself on her own went in the house of applicant and stayed there and she on her own wish, performed marriage with him, therefore, the applicant who is in jail since 23.12.2020 and having no criminal history may be released on bail. He further submitted that the applicant undertakes that in case, he is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and cooperate in trial.

¶9

Per contra, learned AGA opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that as per educational certificate, date of birth of the prosecutrix is 1.1.2003 and on the date of alleged incident, she is around 17 years and 3 months of age and, therefore, she is

¶10

minor. Although, he could not confronted that in the statement recorded under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C., prosecutrix did not allege that the applicant made any physical relationship with her even after marriage rather her statements shows that she on her own wish performed marriage with the applicant and the applicant is in jail from more than one and half years and he is having no criminal history.

¶11

I have heard learned counsel for both the parties and perused the record of the case.

¶12

From the perusal of the statement of prosecutrix recorded under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. it is apparent that there is no allegation of either rape or making physical relationship by the applicant with the prosecutrix rather both the statements shows that prosecutrix as per her own wish stayed in the house of applicant for a considerable period of time and she herself had gone to the house of applicant to perform marriage with him and the medical certificate in respect of the age of prosecutrix shows that she is more than 18 years of age and applicant is in jail for more than about one and a a half years and he is having no criminal history, therefore, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I am of the view that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail. Hence, the bail application is allowed.

¶13

Let the applicant- Vinod , be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions which are being imposed in the interest of justice:-

¶14

i) The applicant will not tamper with prosecution evidence and will not harm or harass the victim/complainant in any manner whatsoever.

¶15

ii) The applicant will abide the orders of court, will attend the court on every date and will not delay the disposal of trial in any manner whatsoever.

¶16

(iii) 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.

¶17

(iv) The applicant will not misuse the liberty of bail in any manner whatsoever. In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence

¶18

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 I.P.C.

¶19

(v) 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 and the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229A IPC.

¶20

(vi) The trial court may make all possible efforts/endeavor and try to conclude the trial expeditiously after the release of the applicant.

¶21

The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be verified by court concerned and in case of breach of any of the conditions mentioned above, court concerned will be at liberty to cancel the bail and send the applicant to prison.

¶22

It is clarified that anything said in this order is limited to the purpose of determination of this bail application and will in no way be construed as an expression on the merits of the case. It is further clarified that the trial court shall be absolutely free to arrive at its independent conclusions on the basis of evidence led unaffected by anything said in this order.

¶23

Order Date :- 24.6.2022 Ankita

¶24

Digitally signed by ANKITA SRIVASTAVA Date: 2022.06.25 12:52:36 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Vinod v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vinod v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Meena @ Savita and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Shane Alam and Another Vs State of U.P and Another

Chintaharan Tiwari @ Cheeru Cheeru Maharaj and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Rohit Gupta @ Golu Vs State of U.P.

Mugeesudeen @ Guddu Vs State of U.P.

Ankur Kumar Vs State of U.P.