Allowed

Vijay v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC4 Feb 2022BAIL/39184/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Criminal Misc. Bail Application was allowed by the learned Judicial Magistrate. The applicant, accused of offences under IPC and POCSO Act, was granted bail on his personal bond and heavy sureties after the court noted the delay in FIR lodging and lack of prior mention of his involvement.

What did the court decide?

Release of applicant on personal bond and two heavy sureties subject to conditions of appearing in court and not tampering with evidence.

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

¶1

Court No. - 53

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 39184 of 2021

¶3

Applicant :- Vijay Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Manvendra Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,R.U. Rinki Renu

¶4

Hon'ble Om Prakash-VII,J.

¶5

Case is taken-up through video conferencing.

¶6

Heard Shri Manvendra Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, Sushri Rinki Renu, learned counsel for the informant as well as learned A.G.A for the State and perused the record.

¶7

It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. He has not committed the present offence. No prima facie case is made out against the applicant. F.I.R. was lodged by the father of the victim on the basis of information given by her. Nothing was mentioned in it about the involvement of the present applicant. It is further submitted that F.I.R. was lodged on 15.06.2021 whereas offence is said to have been committed on 10.06.2021. Delay occurred in lodging the F.I.R. has not been properly explained. It is further submitted that victim was interrogated by the Investigating Officer but again she did not disclose the involvement of the applicant in the present matter. For the first time, in the statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. of the victim, name of the applicant surfaced. Referring to the aforesaid facts, it is further submitted that if applicant was involved in committing the present offence from the very beginning, this fact would have come in the F.I.R. itself. It is further submitted that applicant was implicated in this matter at later stage by the victim on the basis of advise and after thought. The applicant has no criminal history. He is languishing in jail since 30.06.2021 and in case he is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate in trial.

¶8

On the other hand, learned counsel for the informant as well as learned AGA opposed the prayer for bail and further argued that victim is minor aged about 14 years. Although nothing was mentioned in the F.I.R. regarding the involvement of the applicant in the present matter yet victim has supported the prosecution case in the statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C.. To substantiate this argument, learned counsel for the informant

¶9

referred to the statement of the victim recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. and further argued that a prima facie case is made out against the applicant.

¶10

Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, submissions of learned counsel for the parties and keeping in view the nature of offence, complicity of accused, scrutinizing the facts mentioned in the F.I.R., statement of victim recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., the medical evidence and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed.

¶11

Let the applicant Vijay involved in Case Crime No. 148 of 2021, under Sections 363, 504, 376-D A IPC and Section 3/4 POCSO Act, P.S. Malwan, District - Fatehpur be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two heavy 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.

¶12

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

¶13

The applicant will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness.

¶14

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

¶15

The applicant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which he is accused, or suspected, of the commission of which he is suspected.

¶16

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 or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶17

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

¶18

Order Date :- 4.2.2022 Sanjeet

Vijay v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vijay 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Raghvendra Chauhan Vs State of U.P.

Rizwan @ Bablu Vs State of U.P.

Govind Singh Chauhan Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Smt. Tejindar Kaur Bhullar Vs State of U.P.and Another

Vishal @ Gaurav Vs State of U.P.

Neeraj Kumar Vs State of U.P and 2 Others