Allowed

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

Allahabad HC28 Jul 2023BAIL/4914/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bail application allowed for an applicant in a case alleging abduction and sexual relations with a girl. The court noted conflicting testimonies regarding the victim's age and consent but granted bail based on reports suggesting she may have been 18, emphasizing the decision does not pre-judge trial merits.

What did the court decide?

The applicant - Vivek be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with specified conditions.

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

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:152069

¶2

Court No. - 70

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 4914 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Vivek Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Lal Behari Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Sameer Jain,J.

¶6

Sri Pradeep Kumar, learned AGA apprised the Court that on 01.02.2023 notice has been served to the informant. Despite service of notice, none appeared on behalf of the informant.

¶7

Heard Sri L.B. Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Pradeep Kumar, learned AGA for the State.

¶8

The instant bail application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 445 of 2022, under Sections 363, 366, 376 IPC and Section 3/4 POCSO Act, Police Station Ghosi, District Mau during pendency of the trial.

¶9

FIR of the present case was lodged against applicant under Sections 363, 366 IPC and according to the FIR applicant enticed away the daughter of the informant aged about 17 years.

¶10

Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that applicant is innocent and daughter of the informant is major girl aged about 18 years and she according to her own wish had gone along with the applicant and this fact is evident from her statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. however, when her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. was recorded then under the pressure of her parents she stated that applicant abducted her and made physical relationship with her under false promise of marriage.

¶11

He next submits that even from the statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. it appears that she was consenting party. He next submits that as per school record the victim was around 17 and 1/2 years old and as per doctor her radiological age was although below 18 years but this fact again shows that actually victim is about 18 years old. He next submits that applicant is not

¶12

having any criminal history and in the present matter he is in jail since 29.11.2022 i.e. for more than seven months.

¶13

Per contra, learned AGA opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that as per the record it appears that victim is below 18 years old and she in her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. stated that applicant made physical relationship with her and thereafter refused to marry with her but he could not dispute the fact that even as per school record and her X-ray report, it appears that she was around 18 years old at the time of incident and from the statement of victim recorded under Sections 161 Cr.P.C. and 164 Cr.P.C. she appears to be consenting party.

¶14

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

¶15

Considering the fact that even as per school record and X-ray report victim i.e. prosecutrix of the case appears to be about 18 years old and from her statement recorded under Sections 161 Cr.P.C. and 164 Cr.P.C. it cannot be ruled out that she was not consenting party, in my view, applicant is entitled to be released on bail.

¶16

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

¶17

Let the applicant - Vivek 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:-

¶18

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

¶19

(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.

¶20

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

¶21

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.

¶22

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.

¶23

Order Date :- 28.7.2023 AK Pandey

¶24

Digitally signed by :- ANUPAM KUMAR PANDEY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vivek 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bheem Gupta Vs State of U.P.

Rajesh @ Akshat Raj Yadav Vs State of U.P.

Sanjay Seth Vs State of U.P.

Omendra Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Leelawati Devi Vs State of U.P.

Sanni Panchal Vs State of U.P.