Allowed

Vineet v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC23 Nov 2022BAIL/45494/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Judicature at Allahabad allowed a bail application. Recognizing the victim as a major female involved in consensual relations, the court found prima facie that the accused had a case for bail despite the false allegations against him. Bail was granted subject to four specific conditions regarding adjournments, court presence, and procedural steps.

What did the court decide?

Release on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties, subject to an undertaking against seeking adjournments during evidence and ensuring presence for charge framing and Section 313 Cr.P.C.

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

¶1

Court No. - 64

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 45494 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Vineet Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Suneel Kumar Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Rajiv Gupta,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶6

This bail application has been filed by the applicant seeking bail in Case Crime No. 165 of 2022, under Sections 504, 506, 376, 406 IPC and 3/4 of D.P. Act, Police Station- Kotwali, DistrictRampur.

¶7

Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant is wholly innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case due to ulterior motive.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant has next submitted that first information report has been lodged by the victim herself wherein she stated that her marriage was settled with applicant about five years back and it was agreed that he shall solemnize marriage after one year and thereafter the applicant started making physical relations with the victim, however, subsequently refused to marry her. It is further alleged that the applicant had borrowed a sum of Rs. 5,000/- and later when she asked him to return back the said amount, the applicant started hurling abuses and extended death threats and refused to marry her and later started making demand of Rs. 10 lakhs, failing which, refused to marry her.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicant has next submitted that victim is a major girl aged about 24 years and she out of her own freewill and consent had made physical relations with the victim. The allegation of taking a loan of Rs. 5,000/- and refusing for its return, is absolutely false, cooked up and concocted. Subsequently, when the applicant refused to marry her, the first information report has been lodged against him with absolutely false allegations.

¶10

Learned counsel for the applicant has next submitted that the applicant is in jail since 17.8.2022 and has no criminal history to his credit. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will

¶11

not misuse the liberty of bail and will co-operate in the trial by all means. There is no chance of applicant fleeing away from judicial process or tampering with the witnesses, as such, he be released on bail.

¶12

Per contra, learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the aforesaid facts and the fact that the victim is a major girl aged about 24 years and had made physical relations with the applicant on the false pretext of marriage.

¶13

Having considered the rival submissions made by learned counsel for both the parties and on perusal of the record, it is evident that the victim is a major girl aged about 24 years and even as per the allegation made in the first information report, their marriage was settled about five years back, which was to be agreed to solemnize marriage after one year, however, thereafter the applicant started making consensual physical relations with her and still continued the said relationship even after five years of promise of marriage. Prima faice, it appears that the victim is a consensual party and a major able to stand things, however subsequently, when the applicant refused to marry, the present first information report has been lodged with the exaggerated version and in the statement of the victim shown to be recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., it is falsely stated that the family members of the applicant started making demand of Rs. 10 lakhs, failing which, refused to marry her. Furthermore, the applicant is in jail since 17.8.2022 and has no criminal history to his credit. There is no chance of applicant fleeing away from judicial process or tampering with the witnesses. In the backdrop of the aforesaid circumstances, I am of the view that prima facie applicant has made out a case for bail.

¶14

Let the applicant- Vineet be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to the following conditions:-

¶15

(1). The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates 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.

¶16

(2). 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.

¶17

(3). 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. is issued and the 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.

¶18

(4). The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) 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.

¶19

It is clarified that the observations, if any, made in this order are strictly confined to the disposal of this bail application and must not be construed to have any reflection on the ultimate merits of the case.

¶20

It is further directed that the identity, status and residence proof of the sureties be verified by the authorities concerned before they are accepted.

¶21

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the trial court will be at liberty to cancel the bail.

¶22

The bail application is accordingly allowed.

¶23

Order Date :- 23.11.2022 KU

¶24

Digitally signed by KALIM UDDIN SIDDIQUI Date: 2022.11.23 17:41:09 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Vineet v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vineet v. State of U.P.

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

Makhanchu Vs State of U.P.and 3 Others

Vijay @ Bhura @ Bhuri Vs State of U.P.and 3 Others

Sharda Devi Vs State of U.P.

Dildar Vs State of U.P. and Another

Shyamveer Vs State of U.P.

Mata Deen Vs State of U.P.