Allowed

Vipin @ Hori Lal v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC8 Dec 2022BAIL/37024/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Hon'ble Shekhar Kumar Yadav, J. allowed the bail application of Vipin @ Hori Lal under Section 439 CrPC in a case involving IPC and POCSO offences. The court found a fit case for bail despite opposition, imposing strict conditions to prevent misuse of liberty and ensure trial completion.

What did the court decide?

Release of applicant on personal bond and two sureties subject to conditions to ensure presence, avoid adjournments, and prevent misuse of bail, with trial to conclude within one year.

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

¶1

Court No. - 76 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 37024 of 2022 Applicant :- Vipin @ Hori Lal Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Hardeo Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Gyanendra Kumar Singh

¶2

Hon'ble Shekhar Kumar Yadav,J.

¶3

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

¶4

This second bail application under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the applicant seeking enlargement on bail in Case Crime No. 238 of 2019, (S.T. No. 126 of 2019), under Sections 363, 366, 376 IPC and 3/4 POCSO Act, 2012, Police Station Kamalganj, District Farrukhabad.

¶5

This is second bail application of the applicant. The first bail application no. 10776 of 2020 (Vipin @ Hori Lal Vs. State of U.P.) was rejected by Hon'ble Ram Krishna Gautam, J. vide order dated 6.1.2021.

¶6

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 in High School certificate the date of birth of the victim has been shown as 7.7.2004. The statement of the victim has been recorded under section 164 Cr.P.C. in which the victim has admitted that she had gone with the applicant on her own sweet will and she lived with the applicant about 31 days. There is major contradiction in the statements of the victim recorded under sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. It has further submitted that as per the medical report no internal or external injury has been found on the body of the victim. The medical report does not support the prosecution version. The doctor has opined that there are no signs of use of force, however final opinion is reserved pending on availability of F.S.L. report. 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 17.10.2019.

¶7

On the other hand, learned counsel for the complainant as well as learned A.G.A. oppose the application for bail.

¶8

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

¶9

stage without commenting on the merits of the case, I find it a fit case for bail.

¶10

Let the applicant Vipin @ Hori Lal, 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.

¶11

(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.

¶12

(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.

¶13

(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.

¶14

(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.

¶15

(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.

¶16

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

¶17

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.

¶18

Order Date :- 8.12.2022/A.

¶19

Digitally signed by AFAQ AHMAD Date: 2022.12.08 13:29:59 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Vipin @ Hori Lal v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vipin @ Hori Lal 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Abdul Quadir Vs State of U.P. and Another

Noor Ahmad Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Jabreel Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Dayasagar Vs State of U.P.

Pradeep Vs State of U.P.

Ahmad Vs State of U.P.