Allowed

Vinay Kumar Alias Beenu v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC1 Mar 2023BAIL/3662/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Court granted bail to Vinay Kumar Alias Beenu charged under IPC 376DA and POCSO. Despite serious allegations, bail allowed citing jail overcrowding, Article 21 rights, and uncertainty in conclusion of trial, while imposing strict conditions to prevent witness tampering and ensure speedy trial.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail on furnishing personal bond and two sureties subject to conditions including no witness tampering and sincere cooperation in trial.

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

¶1

Court No. - 73

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 3662 of 2023

¶3

Applicant :- Vinay Kumar Alias Beenu Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Ravindra Sharma Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Beena Mishra

¶4

Hon'ble Siddharth,J.

¶5

Heard Shri Deepak Kumar Vishwakarma holding brief of Shri Ravindra Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant; Ms. Beena Mishra, learned counsel appearing for opposite party nos. 3 and 4 and learned A.G.A.

¶6

The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant, Vinay Kumar Alias Beenu, with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No. 65 of 2022, under Sections 376DA,506 IPC and section 5/6 POCSO Act Police Station Chaubepur, DistrictKanpur Outer, during pendency of trial.

¶7

There is allegation against the applicant of committing offence of rape against minor girl, extending threat besides offence under section 5/6 POCSO Act. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that initially First Information Report was lodged against the applicant and co-accused under section 354(Ka)506 I.P.C. and section 7/8 POCSO Act. Subsequently victim has implicated the applicant for committing offence under section 376 I.P.C. in her statement under section 164 Cr.P.c. As per radiological report of the victim she is aged about 17 years.Given margin of one year on higher side, she can be considered to be major.Medical report of the victim does not supports the prosecution case.The applicant is in jail since 12.4.2022 and has no criminal history.

¶8

Learned A.G.A. has opposed the bail prayer of the applicant but could not dispute the aforesaid facts.

¶9

Keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused; submissions of the learned counsel for the parties noted above; finding

¶10

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 recent judgment dated 11.07.2022 of the Apex Court in the case of 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

¶11

Let the applicant 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.

¶12

The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence by intimidating/ pressurizing the witnesses, during the investigation or trial.

¶13

The applicant shall cooperate in the trial sincerely without seeking any adjournment.

¶14

The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal activity or commission of any crime after being released on bail.

¶15

That 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 or to any police ofÏcer;

¶16

The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence and the witnesses are present in court. In case of default of this condition, it

¶17

shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law to ensure presence of the applicant.

¶18

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 default of this condition is deliberate or without sufÏcient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of his 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

In case the trial has commenced, the trial court will conclude the same within a period one year as per section 309 Cr.P.C.

¶21

Order Date :- 1.3.2023 Atul kr. sri.

¶22

Digitally signed by :- ATUL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Vinay Kumar Alias Beenu v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vinay Kumar Alias Beenu 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rohit and Another Vs State of U.P.

Ravindra Rana @ Tinku @ Pahalwan Vs State of U.P.

Vimal Vs State of U.P and 3 Others

Shekhar Vs State of U.P.

Rohit Vs State of U.P.

Sonu Yadav Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others