Allowed

Vinod @ Mohan v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC9 Feb 2022BAIL/3264/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a bail application regarding alleged offences under POCSO and IPC, the submission that the applicant was falsely implicated and had no prior criminal history was accepted. Considering jail overcrowding during the pandemic, the single judge granted bail despite not adjudicating the merits of the case.

What did the court decide?

Bail allowed with personal bond and two sureties; applicant released on furnishing of sureties.

Vinod @ Mohan Vs State of U.P. and Another — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 79

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 3264 of 2022 Applicant :- Vinod @ Mohan Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Aman Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶3

Hon'ble Ajay Bhanot,J.

¶4

Heard Sri Aman Kumar, learned counsel for the applicant and learned AGA for the State.

¶5

Shri Anupam Anand, learned brief holder for the State contends that the police authorities in compliance of the directions issued by this Court in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 46998 of 2020 (Junaid Vs State of U.P. and another) reported at 2021 (6) ADJ 511 and with a view to implement the provisions of POCSO Act, 2012 read with POCSO Rules, 2020, have served the bail application upon the informant/victim as well as upon the CWC. Form A and Form B are also available with the record.

¶6

It is also contended that no instructions are available from the C.W.C. The C.W.C., district Bareilly, has not complied with the directions issued by this Court in Junaid (supra) and also not implemented the protective provisions of POCSO Act, 2012 read with POCSO Rules, 2020.

¶7

The Principal Secretary, Department of Women & Child Development, Government of U.P. shall file his personal

¶8

affidavit explaining the conduct and the action taken against the concerned officers of the C.W.C. who have failed to comply with directions issued by this Court in Junaid (supra) on or before 21.02.2022 before the Registrar General of this Court.

¶9

A first information report was lodged against the applicant as Case Crime No. 0378 of 2020 at Police Station- Bhamora, District- Bareilly under Sections 363, 366 I.P.C.

¶10

The bail application of the applicant was rejected by learned Special Judge (POCSO Act)/Additional Sessions Judge, Bareilly, on 16.07.2021.

¶11

The applicant is in jail since 06.12.2020, pursuant to the said F.I.R.

¶12

Sri Aman Kumar, learned counsel for applicant contends that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the instant case. The age of the victim as per the medical report is about 18 years. The victim in her statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. as well as under Section 164 Cr.P.C. has stated that she left her house due to drunken ways of her father. She accompanied the applicant of her own volition. No allegation of rape or forceful assault has been made by the victim against the applicant. Apart from the instant case the applicant does not have any

¶13

criminal history. Lastly it is contended by the learned counsel for applicant that the applicant shall not abscond and will fully cooperate in the criminal law proceedings. The applicant shall not tamper with the evidence nor influence the witnesses in any manner.

¶14

Sri Anupam Anand, learned brief holder for the State could not satisfactorily dispute the aforesaid submissions from the record. Learned brief holder for the State does not dispute the fact that the applicant does not have any criminal history apart from the instant case.

¶15

Courts have taken notice of the overcrowding of jails during the current pandemic situation (Ref.: Suo Motu Writ Petition (c) No. 1/2020, Contagion of COVID 19 Virus in prisons before the Supreme Court of India). These circumstances shall also be factored in while considering bail applications on behalf of accused persons.

¶16

I see merit in the submissions of the learned counsel for the applicant and hold that the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail.

¶17

In the light of the preceding discussion and without making any observations on the merits of the case, the bail application is allowed.

¶18

Let the applicant- Vinod @ Mohan be released on bail in

¶19

Case Crime No. 0378 of 2020 at Police StationBhamora, District- Bareilly under Sections 363, 366, 376(2)n I.P.C. and Section 5/6 POCSO Act, on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court below. The following conditions be imposed in the interest of justice:-

¶20

The applicant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.

¶21

The applicant will not influence any witness.

¶22

The applicant will appear before the trial court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted.

¶23

The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶24

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the prosecution shall be at liberty to move bail cancellation application before this Court.

¶25

Order Date :- 9.2.2022 Pravin

¶26

Digitally signed by PRAVIN VERMA Date: 2022.02.11 15:29:55 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Vinod @ Mohan v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vinod @ Mohan 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jogendra Singh Vs State of Up.

Ashraf Vs State of U.P.and Another

Dhirendra Vs State of U.P.

Sanjiv Vs State of U.P.

Smt. Dilwari Vs State of U.P.

Rai Sahab Prajapati Vs State of U.P.