Allowed

Vipin Kumar @ Vipin v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC4 Jul 2023BAIL/13991/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the bail application of an applicant charged with disrobing, rape, and offences under POCSO and SC/ST Acts. The Court granted bail considering jail overcrowding and the applicant's fundamental right to a speedy trial, without expressing an opinion on the merits of the prosecution case.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on personal bond and two sureties subject to verification of identity and specific undertakings to appear in court and not tamper with evidence.

Vipin Kumar @ Vipin Vs State of U.P. and… — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:131464

¶2

Court No. - 64

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 13991 of 2021

¶4

Applicant :- Vipin Kumar @ Vipin Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Krishna Kumar Shukla,Abhishek Kumar Saroj,Devendra Tiwari Deva,M.N. Singh,Mahesh Narain Singh,Nagendra Bahadur Singh,Phool Chandra,Rajesh Kumar Dwivedi,Sanjay Kumar Tripathi,Santosh Kumar Tiwari,Sunil Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Siddharth,J.

¶6

Heard Sri Sunil Kumar, learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A for the State.

¶7

Counter affidavit filed by learned A.G.A is taken on record.

¶8

There is allegation against the applicant of disrobing the child victim belonging to schedule caste, committing the offence of rape and threatening apart from offence under POCSO Act.

¶9

Counsel for the applicant submits that before the doctor the victim only alleged the offence of disrobing against the applicant and the allegation of rape was subsequently made in her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C only. The medical report does not supports the prosecution case at all. The first statement before the doctor was most reliable and the subsequent statements were made by the victim after tutoring by the parents. The applicant is in jail since 27.11.2020 and has no criminal history to his credit.

¶10

On the other hand learned A.G.A has opposed the prayer for bail.

¶11

Keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused; submissions of the learned counsel for the parties noted above; finding force in the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant; keeping view the uncertainty regarding conclusion of trial; one sided investigation by police, ignoring the case of accused side; applicant being under-trial having fundamental right to speedy trial; larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India; considering the dictum of Apex Court in the case of

¶12

Satendra Kumar Antil vs. C.B.I., passed in S.L.P (Crl.) No. 5191 of 2021 ; considering 5-6 times overcrowding in jails over and above their capacity by the under trials 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.

¶13

Let the applicant, Vipin Kumar @ Vipin, involved in Case Crime No. 607 of 2020, under Sections- 354Kha, 376A, 376B, 506 IPC and Section 5M/6 of POCSO Act and 3(2)(5), 3(2)(5A) of SC/ST Act, Police Station- Cantt., District- Bareilly, 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.

¶14

(i) The applicant shall not tamper with the evidence or threaten the witnesses.

¶15

(ii) 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

(iii) The applicant shall remain present before the Trial Court on each date fixed, either personally or as directed by the Court. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the Trial Court may proceed against him under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶17

(iv) 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 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶18

(v) 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

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

¶20

Identity and residence proof of the applicant and sureties be verified by the court concerned before the bonds are accepted.

¶21

Order Date :- 4.7.2023 Rohit

¶22

Digitally signed by :- ROHIT DAS High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Vipin Kumar @ Vipin v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vipin Kumar @ Vipin 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

Hoteylal Vs State of U.P.

Dinesh Vs State of U.P.

Poonam Devi Vs State of U.P.

Prakash Bhuiyan Vs State of U.P.

Pinku Sahu Vs State of U.P. and Another

Vijendra Vs State of U.P.