Allowed

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

Allahabad HC24 Jan 2023BAIL/52888/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Judicature at Allahabad allowed a bail application in a POCSO, abduction, and rape case. Considering jail overcrowding and delay concerns under Article 21, the court granted bail without expressing an opinion on the merits.

What did the court decide?

Applicant Vikram released on bail with personal bond and sureties, subject to conditions regarding appearance and conduct.

Vikram Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Court No. - 73

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 52888 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Vikram Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Manoj Kumar Dubey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Yogesh Kumar Mishra

¶4

Hon'ble Siddharth,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Yogesh Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the informant and learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶6

There is allegation against the application of abduction of minor girl with intent to marry, commission of offence of rape and offence under Sections 3/4 of POCSO Act.

¶7

Learned counsel for the applicant relying upon statement of the victim under Section 164 Cr.P.C has stated that she has married the applicant and has one child from the wedlock. She is clearly a consenting party. Applicant is in jail since 30.09.2022.

¶8

Learned AGA has opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the above submissions.

¶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 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 case of Dataram Singh Vs. State of U.P. and another reported in (2018) 3 SCC 22 and 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 and 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.

¶10

Let the applicant, Vikram, involved in Case Crime No.0028 of 2022, under Sections 363, 366, 376 I.P.C 3/4 POCSO Act, Police Station Madhuban Bapudham, District- Ghaziabad 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.

¶11

(i) The applicant shall not tamper with the evidence or threaten the witnesses.

¶12

(ii) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates 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.

¶13

(iii) The applicant shall remain present before the Trial Court on each date fixed, either personally or as directed by the Court. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the Trial Court may proceed against him under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶14

(iv) In case the applicant misuse the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence, proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued and the applicants fail 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 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶15

(v) 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 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.

¶16

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the complainant is free to move an application for cancellation of bail before this court.

¶17

Identity and residence proof of the applicant and sureties be verified by the court concerned before the bonds are accepted.

¶18

Order Date :- 24.1.2023 SS

¶19

Digitally signed by :- SURENDAR SINGH NARANG High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vikram 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

Gulab Pal Vs State of U.P.

Kale @ Sahab Singh Vs State of U.P.

Sudama @ Anuruddha Singh Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Santoshi Vs State of U.P.

Dinesh Chaudhary Vs State of U.P.

Sudhir Maurya @ Babaji Vs State of U.P.