Allowed

Vishal Verma v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC18 Aug 2023BAIL/33125/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a bail application filed by Vishal Verma in a case involving IPC and POCSO charges. The court observed that while the initial 161 Cr.P.C. statement lacked allegations, the 164 Cr.P.C. statement indicated a voluntary relationship and marriage, and the victim's age was confirmed as over 18 via ossification report. The court granted bail subject to standard conditions.

What did the court decide?

Granted release on bail furnishing a personal bond and two sureties to the satisfaction of the court.

Vishal Verma Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others — Matrimonial and Divorce | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:166164

¶2

Court No. - 70

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 33125 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Vishal Verma Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Rafeek Ahmad Khan Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Sameer Jain,J.

¶6

Sri Jhamman Ram, learned AGA-I, for the State, apprised the Court that notice has been served to the informant of the case on 28.7.2023.

¶7

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

¶8

Heard Sri Rafeek Ahmad Khan, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Jhamman Ram, learned AGA-I, 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.469 of 2022, under Sections 363,366 and 376 IPC and Section 4 POCSO Act, Police Station Kotwali Nagar (Mahoba), District Mahoba during pendency of the trial.

¶10

FIR of the present case was lodged against unknown persons under Section 363 IPC and according to the FIR, daughter of the informant aged about 16 years had gone somewhere from her house.

¶11

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that FIR of the present case was lodged against unknown persons and when the prosecutrix was recovered and her statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. was recorded then she did not make any allegation against

¶12

any one including the applicant and stated that as her father forcibly wanted to perform her marriage with some elderly person, therefore, she left her paternal home.

¶13

He further submits that when the statement of the prosecutrix was recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. then she stated that she according to her own wish had gone with the applicant and also performed marriage with him.

¶14

He further submits that although as per school record the age of the prosecutrix was around 15 and 1/2 years at the time of incident but according to her ossification test report she was around 18 years old. He further submits that even in her statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. prosecutrix stated that her wrong date of birth has been mentioned in the school records and, therefore, it appears that prosecurix is a major girl.

¶15

He further submits that applicant is not having any previous criminal history and in the present matter he is in jail since 15.6.2023.

¶16

Per contra, learned AGA although opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the argument on facts advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant.

¶17

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

¶18

Although from the record it reflects that in the statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. prosecutrix did not make any allegation of rape against any one including applicant but when her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. was recorded then she stated that she according to her own wish had gone along with applicant

¶19

and had also performed marriage with him.

¶20

Although as per school record the prosecutrix at the time of incident was around 15 and 1/2 years old but according to her ossification test report she was around 18 years and even prosecutrix in her statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. stated that in school record her wrong date of birth has been mentioned.

¶21

Law is settled that the bail application should not be rejected either due to preventive or punitive purposes.

¶22

Applicant is not having any previous criminal history and he is in jail in the present matter since June, 2023.

¶23

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

¶24

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

¶25

Let the applicant- Vishal Verma 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:-

¶26

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

¶27

(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.

¶28

(iii) The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal and anti-social activity.

¶29

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.

¶30

It is clarified that the observations made herein are limited to the facts brought in by the parties pertaining to the disposal of bail application and the said observations shall have no bearing on the merits of the case during trial.

¶31

Order Date :- 18.8.2023

¶32

SKM

¶33

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

Vishal Verma v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vishal Verma 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

Manish Gaur @ Manni Vs State of U.P.

Subhash Vs State of U.P.

Rakesh Vs State of U.P.

Pradeep Yadav Vs State of U.P.

Deepak Sharma Vs State of U.P.

Vipin Kumar Vs State of U.P.