Allowed

Vipin v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC11 Jan 2023BAIL/26676/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court allowed the second bail application in a POCSO and rape case. Citing uncorroborated prosecution witness testimony and no flight risk, the Court ordered release on bond with two sureties under specified conditions, clarifying no opinion on merits was expressed.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail on furnishing personal bond and two heavy and local sureties to the satisfaction of the court concerned.

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

¶1

Court No. - 86

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 26676 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Vipin Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Virendra Singh,Sarvesh Kumar Dubey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Akhilesh Kumar Singh

¶4

Hon'ble Mayank Kumar Jain,J.

¶5

This is a second bail application moved on behalf of the applicant. The first bail application bearing No. 21852 of 2019 was rejected vide order dated 30.03.2022 by Hon'ble Ali Zamin, J.

¶6

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

¶7

This second bail application has been filed on behalf of applicant, who is involved in Case Crime No. 343 of 2017, under Section 376 IPC and section 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, Police Station Sikandrabad, District Bulandshahr, with the prayer to enlarge the applicant on bail.

¶8

The new ground for moving this bail application is that the statements of prosecution witnesses have been recorded before the trial court while PW-1 Smt. Geeta, the informant and the mother of the victim, PW-2 Rajendra Singh, father of the victim, PW-3 Smt. Rajesh, PW-4, Smt. Kunti, PW-5 Smt.Shakuntala, PW-6, Dr. Sudha Sharma and PW-7 the victim of the case have already been recorded. The witnesses of fact have not corroborated the version of the prosecution in their testimony. It is next submitted that the victim has been declared hostile by the trial court. It is next contended that there is no chance of the applicant of fleeing away from the judicial process or tampering with the prosecution evidence.The applicant is languishing in jail since 03.05.2017. The applicant does not have any criminal history to his credit. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶9

Learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for the informant vehemently opposed the prayer for bail, but could not dispute the fact that the prosecution witnesses have not supported the prosecution version in their testimony.

¶10

Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, submissions of learned counsel for the parties, nature of evidence, gravity of offence, without expressing any opinion on 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 Vipin, involved in the aforesaid crime be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two heavy and local sureties to the satisfaction of court concerned subject to the following conditions:

¶12

(1) The applicant will not tamper with the prosecution evidence during the trial.

¶13

(2) The applicant will not influence any witness.

¶14

(3) The applicant will appear before the trial Court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted.

¶15

(4) 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 to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶16

(5) The applicant shall make himself present in person on the date fixed for recording of statement under section 313 Cr.P.C.

¶17

(6) If the applicant desires to produce documentary or oral evidence in his defence, he shall not seek any adjournment so as to the trial may be concluded expeditiously by the court concerned.

¶18

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

¶19

It is clarified that anything said in this order is limited to the purpose of determination of this bail application and will in no way be construed as an expression on the merits of the case. The trial court shall be absolutely free to arrive at its independent conclusions on the basis of evidence led unaffected by anything said in this order.

¶20

Order Date :- 11.1.2023 Sazia

¶21

Digitally signed by :- SAZIA AQUIL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Vipin v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vipin 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

Jogendra @ Lala Vs State of U.P.

Shivji @ Shiv Kumar Vs State of U.P.

Smt. Anju Vs State of U.P.

Smt. Babli Vs State of U.P and 3 Others

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

Rajendra Kumar Alias Sintu Vs State of U.P.