The single-judge High Court of Allahabad rejected the bail application of Vijay Sahani in a POCSO/rape case. The court held that the gravity of offences and lack of a made-out case for bail justified rejection without deciding merits, noting opposition by the AGA on serious allegations.
Application for bail rejected.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 86
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 14540 of 2022
Applicant :- Vijay Sahani Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Pramod Kumar Sahani,Vivek Singh Shrinet Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Mayank Kumar Jain,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
The present bail application has been filed on behalf of applicant in Case Crime No. 55 of 2021, under Sections 363, 366, 376 I.P.C. and under section 3/4 POCSO Act, Police Station Khorabar, District Gorakhpur, with the prayer to enlarge the applicant on bail.
It is submitted that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. As per the allegation made in the FIR is that the applicant has enticed away the niece of the informant aged about 16 years. As per the medical report, the victim is aged about 18 years. The applicant has not made physical relation with the victim against her will and the victim is major and she went with the applicant on her own sweet will. It is next submitted that the victim has refused her medical examination.
It has been further submitted that applicant is languishing in jail since 21.02.2021 having no criminal history and that in case the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate in trial.
Per-contra, learned AGA has vehemently opposed the bail application and argued that facts narrated in the FIR is serious in nature. The victim in her statement under Section 164 Cr. P.C. has supported the version of FIR and stated that the applicant has committed rape with her, hence the applicant is not entitled for bail.
Considering the submissions of learned counsel for the parties, nature of allegations, gravity of offence, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court is of the opinion that no case for grant of bail is made out. Hence, the bail application is hereby rejected.
Order Date :- 19.1.2023 v.k.updh.
Digitally signed by :- VINOD KUMAR UPADHYAY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the applicant is entitled to bail given the allegations of rape under IPC Section 376 and POCSO.
Whether false implication is established to warrant bail in a serious cognizable offence.
Whether the gravity of the offence and lack of credible prima facie case for bail justifies its rejection.
3 provisions across 3 enactments
Vijay Sahani
State Of U.P.
Mayank Kumar Jain
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
