Allowed

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

Allahabad HC12 Oct 2022BAIL/32872/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a Criminal Misc. Bail Application, the Court considered the release of an applicant accused of sexual assault, rape, and producing false evidence under Sections 354, 506 IPC and Section 9/10 POCSO Act. Observing significant delays in lodging the FIR and the victim not naming persons present at the scene, the Court granted bail.

What did the court decide?

Release on bail by furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each with the satisfaction of the court below.

Vinod Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 79

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 32872 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Vinod Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Shive Datta Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Anand Kumar Singh

¶4

Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,J.

¶5

1.Heard Sri Shive Datta Yadav, the learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Arun Kumar Pandey, the learned Additional Government Advocate and perused the record.

¶6

2.Supplementary affidavit filed today is taken on record.

¶7

3.The instant application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 186 of 2022, under Sections 354, 506 IPC and Section 9/10 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 Police Station Shivli, District Kanpur Dehat.

¶8

4.The aforesaid case has been registered on the basis of a first information report lodged on 03.06.2022 alleging that on 29.05.2022, the applicant and the co-accused Vinod (who is a cousin of the applicant), had committed sexual assault with the informant's minor daughter. When the victim raised a hue and cry, certain villagers who were grazing their cattle nearby came there, the accused persons ran away.

¶9

5.In his statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., the informant reiterated the FIR version and in response to a precise question as to who were the persons, who had reached the spot, the informant mentioned two names.

¶10

6.In her statement, the alleged victim reiterated the FIR version but she did not mention the name of any person, who had reached the spot. A similar statement statement was given by the victim's mother. The victim's mother has further stated that the victim as well as some boys of the village had told about the incident 3-4 days after the occurrence.

¶11

7.It has been averred in the affidavit filed in support of the bail application that the applicant is an innocent person, he has been falsely implicated in the case, he is having no previous criminal history and he is in jail since 04.06.2022. It has also been stated in the affidavit that there is no possibility of the applicant

¶12

tampering with any evidence and in such circumstances, the applicant is entitled for bail. It is also stated in the affidavit that the applicant will not misuse the liberty of bail and he will fully cooperate in the investigation.

¶13

8.The learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant is aged about 55 years and his cousin Santosh, who is also accused in the present case, is aged about 58 years. The applicant has four daughters.

¶14

9.Per contra, the learned Additional Government Advocate has opposed the prayer for grant of bail and on the basis of instructions, he has stated that during investigation, statements of the persons named in the FIR have not been recorded by the Investigating Officer.

¶15

10.Having considered the aforesaid facts and circumstances and keeping in view the fact that the incident alleged to have taken place on 29.05.2022 and the FIR has been lodged on 03.06.2022; that the victim as well as her mother have not named the persons who had reached on the spot and the statement of no person has been recorded during investigation; that the applicant is an old person having married daughters and that he has no criminal history, I am of the view that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in the aforesaid case.

¶16

11.In light of the preceding discussion and without making any observation on the merit of the case, the instant bail application is allowed.

¶17

12.Let the applicant Vinod be released on bail in Case Crime No. 186 of 2022, under Sections 354, 506 IPC and Section 9/10 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 Police Station Shivli, District Kanpur Dehat on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court below, subject to the following conditions:-

¶18

(i) The applicant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.

¶19

(ii) The applicant will not influence any witness.

¶20

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

¶21

(iv) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such

¶22

facts to the Court to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶23

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

¶24

Order Date :- 12.10.2022 Ashish Pd.

¶25

Digitally signed by ASHISH PRASAD Date: 2022.10.17 11:19:46 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

Sandeep @ Honey Jotwai Vs State of U.P.

Ali Raza Vs State of U.P.

Vijaypal Vs State of U.P.

Ajay Kumar Vs State of U.P.

Israr Vs State of U.P.

Mohit Upadhyay Vs State of U.P.