Allowed

Vikash Babu @ Vikash v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC26 Oct 2023BAIL/44776/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Hon'ble Samit Gopal, J. allowed the criminal bail application filed by Vikash Babu @ Vikash. The court noted the FIR was lodged after a two-year delay and the victim refused medical examination, finding no convincing material to suggest tampering with evidence.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail by furnishing a personal bond and two sureties subject to specific conditions regarding tampering and trial attendance.

Vikash Babu @ Vikash Vs State of U.P. — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:204110

¶2

Court No. - 69

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 44776 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Vikash Babu @ Vikash Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Ashish Goyal Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Samit Gopal,J.

¶6

List revised.

¶7

Heard Sri Ashish Goyal, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Ajay Singh, learned AGA-I for the State and perused the material on record.

¶8

This bail application under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the applicant Vikash Babu @ Vikash, seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No. 431 of 2023, under Sections 376, 323, 420, 406, 506 I.P.C., registered at Police Station Tajganj, District Agra.

¶9

The FIR of the matter was lodged by the victim herself on 25.05.2023 against the applicant alleging therein that she met the applicant on 02.04.2021 and on an allurement to get her job he increased his acquaintance with her and used to visit her house. She started doing tuition from her home for her livelihood. The applicant on a false promise to marry established physical relationship with her regularly. She used to resist the act of physical relationship many times on which the applicant used to assault her.

¶10

Learned counsel for the applicant argued that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is argued that the victim is a major woman. She has disclosed her age as 42 years in her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. whereas 48 years in her statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. She refused her medical examination when produced before the doctor. It is argued that the FIR has been lodged after an unexplained delay of about two years from the date of first act of physical assault. It is argued that the relationship was a consensual relationship. Subsequently the FIR has been lodged just in order to blackmail

¶11

and harass the applicant. He further argued that the applicant has no criminal history as stated in para 23 of the affidavit and is in jail since 10.07.2023.

¶12

Per contra, learned counsel for the State opposed the prayer for bail.

¶13

After having heard learned counsels for the parties and perusing the records, it is evident that the victim is a major woman aged about 42 years as stated by her in her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. The FIR has been lodged after an unexplained delay of about two years. She refused her medical examination when produced before the doctor.

¶14

Looking to the facts and circumstances of this case, the nature of evidence and also the absence of any convincing material to indicate the possibility of tampering with the evidence, this Court is of the view that the applicant may be enlarged on bail.

¶15

Let the applicant Vikash Babu @ Vikash , be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions which are being imposed in the interest of justice:-

¶16

i) The applicant will not tamper with prosecution evidence and will not harm or harass the victim/complainant in any manner whatsoever.

¶17

ii) The applicant will abide the orders of court, will attend the court on every date and will not delay the disposal of trial in any manner whatsoever.

¶18

(iii) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the date fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law.

¶19

(iv) The applicant will not misuse the liberty of bail in any manner whatsoever. In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence proclamation under section 82 Cr.P.C., may be issued and if applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under section 174-A I.P.C.

¶20

(v) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on dates fixed for (1) opening of the case, (2) framing of charge and (3) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. If in the opinion of the trial court absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law and the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229-A IPC.

¶21

(vi) The trial court may make all possible efforts/endeavour and try to conclude the trial expeditiously after the release of the applicant.

¶22

The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be verified by court concerned and in case of breach of any of the conditions mentioned above, court concerned will be at liberty to cancel the bail and send the applicant to prison.

¶23

The bail application is allowed .

¶24

Order Date :- 26.10.2023 M. ARIF

¶25

(Samit Gopal, J.)

¶26

Digitally signed by :- MOHAMMAD ARIF High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Vikash Babu @ Vikash v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vikash Babu @ Vikash v. State of U.P.

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

Rohit Vs State of U.P.

Harendra Vs State of U.P.

Mohd. Aman Khan Vs State of U.P.

Jitendra Kumar Vs State of U.P.

Kasim Vs State of U.P.

Gulli Alias Satish Kashyap Vs State of U.P.