Allowed

Vikram Gautam v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC11 Jul 2023BAIL/14781/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge allowed a bail application in a POCSO case where the applicant argued the minor victim was actually a major consenting party. The court noted the victim's statements indicated voluntary departure, marriage, and pregnancy, and observed she was nearing majority with no ossification test conducted.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail by furnishing personal bond and two sureties in like amount, subject to standard bail conditioning regarding court appearance and non-interference.

Vikram Gautam Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:136080

¶2

Court No. - 70

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 14781 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Vikram Gautam Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Pankaj Kumar Dwivedi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Sameer Jain,J.

¶6

As per the office report, notice has been served to the informant.

¶7

Despite service of notice, none appeared on behalf of the informant.

¶8

Heard Sri Deepak Kumar Tripathi, Advocate, holding brief of Sri Pankaj Kumar Dwivedi, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Imran Khan, learned AGA, for the State.

¶9

The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant with the prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No.537 of 2022, under Sections 363, 366, 376, 504 and 506 IPC and Section 5j(ii)/6 POCSO Act, Police Station Phoolpur, District Varanasi during pendency of the trial.

¶10

FIR of the present case was lodged on 27.12.2022 against the applicant and two others and one unknown persons and according to the FIR on 22.12.2022 applicant and other coaccused persons enticed away the minor daughter of the informant.

¶11

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that entire allegation against the applicant is totally false and baseless and in fact daughter of the informant of the case is a major girl aged about more than 18 years and she according to her own wish had gone with applicant and this fact is evident from her both

¶12

the statements recorded under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. He further submits that in the statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. victim categorically stated that she had performed marriage with applicant and she is also pregnant with him.

¶13

He further submits that although as per the educational certificate victim at the time of incident was around 17 years and 5 months old but during investigation her ossification test was not conducted and, therefore, it cannot be said that she was below 18 years.

¶14

He next submits that applicant is not having any previous criminal history and he is in jail in the present matter since 6.2.2023.

¶15

Per contra, learned AGA although opposed the prayer for bail and submits that victim as per her educational record at the time of incident was around 17 years and 5 months old but he could not dispute the fact that in both the statements recorded under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. victim did not make any allegation against the applicant and in her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. she stated that she had become pregnant with applicant and had already performed marriage with him.

¶16

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case.

¶17

Victim in her both the statements recorded under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. did not make any allegation against the applicant and she categorically stated that she according to her own wish had gone with applicant and in her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. she further stated that she had already performed marriage with applicant and she is pregnant with him.

¶18

Although according to her school record, victim was about 17 years and 5 months old at the time of incident but even as per her school record she was at the verge of her majority at the time of incident and further, during investigation her ossification test was not conducted to ascertain her age.

¶19

Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case discussed above, in my view, applicant is entitled to be released on bail.

¶20

Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the instant bail application is allowed.

¶21

Let the applicant- Vikram Gautam be released on bail in the aforesaid case on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:-

¶22

(i) The applicant shall appear before the trial court on the dates fixed, unless his personal presence is exempted.

¶23

(ii) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly, make 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 any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶24

(iii) The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal and antisocial activity.

¶25

In case of breach of any of the above condition, the prosecution will be at liberty to move an application before this Court for cancellation of the bail of the applicant.

¶26

It is clarified that the observations made herein are limited to the facts brought in by the parties pertaining to the

¶27

disposal of bail application and the said observations shall have no bearing on the merits of the case during trial.

¶28

Order Date :- 11.7.2023 SKM

¶29

Digitally signed by :- SHRAVANA KUMAR MISHRA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Vikram Gautam v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vikram Gautam 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

Pradeep Kumar Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Smt. Kahkasha Alias Zebi Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Prince Chauhan Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Bittu Vs State of U.P. and Another

Satendra Singh Vs State of U.P.

Akash Vs State of U.P.