Allowed

Vinod v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC1 Jun 2023BAIL/53765/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a bail application regarding rape charges, the court noted contradictions in the victim's statement and a delay in the FIR. Relying on Supreme Court precedents regarding personal liberty and pre-conviction prejudice, the court allowed bail subject to standard conditions.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail on personal bond and two sureties, subject to conditions against tampering, intimidation, and absence from trial.

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

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:122997

¶2

Court No. - 76

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 53765 of 2022

¶4

Applicant :- Vinod Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Satyendra Sharma,Shailendra Singh,Shiv Shankar Kaithal Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Dileep Kumar Vishwakarma

¶5

Hon'ble Nalin Kumar Srivastava,J.

¶6

Second supplementary affidavit filed today is taken on record.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned counsel for the informant as well as the learned A.G.A for the State and perused the record.

¶8

In this case, it has been alleged in the F.I.R. that on 15.7.2022 at about 10.00 a.m.while the prosecutrix was going to Ahirav Siddharth Palace, the accused, who is neighbour, of the victim, met her on the way and forcefully took her to umash jungle from the Lucknow highway and there he committed rape against her and she was also assaulted by the applicant. After sometime, police came there and applicant was arrested. F.I.R. was lodged on 23.7.2022 and investigation started and now after filing of the charge sheet, trial is going on.

¶9

It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. He has not committed the present offence. It is a consenting relation. The prosecutrix of the case is a major lady. It is quite improbable that from a highway the applicant took her forcefully to a jungle but she did not protest or make any voice against the applicant. Applicant and the victim of the case have been found on the spot by the Head Constable Harikishan whose statement under Section 161 CrPC was recorded by the Investigating Officer in which he has categorically stated that the applicant and the prosecutrix were discovered by him by rode side and they also introduced themselves and no rape was committed before him. It is further submitted that there are material contradictions in the version of the F.I.R. and in the statements of the prosecutrix recorded under Sections 161 and 164 CrPC. The statement of the

¶10

prosecutrix as PW-3 before the trial court is quite unnatural and reveal the fact that it was a case of consensual relation between the applicant and the major prosecutrix. He is languishing in jail since 26.7.2022 and in case he is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate in trial. It is lastly submitted that the F.I.R. in the matter was lodged eight days after the incident but no plausible explanation regarding delay has been tendered.

¶11

On the other hand, learned counsel for the informant and the learned AGA vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that sufficient evidence against the applicant has been collected during course of investigation regarding commission of rape against the prosecutrix and before the trial court the prosecutrix has corroborated the prosecution version in her deposition.

¶12

I have considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties.

¶13

In Union of India Vs. K.A. Najeeb (2021) 3 SCC 713 , the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed that:-

¶14

"15. This Court has clarified in numerous judgments that the liberty guaranteed by Part III of the Constitution would cover within its protective ambit not only due procedure and fairness but also access to justice and a speedy trial. In Supreme Court Legal Aid Committee v. Union of India, (1994) 6 SCC 731, it was held that undertrials cannot indefinitely be detained pending trial. Ideally, no person ought to suffer adverse consequences of his acts unless the same is established before a neutral arbiter. However, owing to the practicalities of real life where to secure an effective trial and to ameliorate the risk to society in case a potential criminal is left at large pending trial, the Courts are tasked with deciding whether an individual ought to be released pending trial or not. Once it is obvious that a timely trial would not be possible and the accused has suffered incarceration for a significant period of time, Courts would ordinarily be obligated to enlarge them on bail."

¶15

In Sanjay Chandra vs. Central Bureau of Investigation, (2012) 1 SCC 40 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under :

¶16

"21. In bail applications, generally, it has been laid down from the earliest times that the object of bail is to secure the appearance of the accused person at his trial by reasonable amount of bail. The object of bail is neither punitive nor preventative. Deprivation of liberty must be considered a punishment, unless it can be required to ensure that an accused person will stand his trial when called upon. The courts owe more than verbal respect to the principle that punishment begins after conviction, and that every man is deemed to be innocent until duly tried and duly found guilty.

¶17

22. From the earliest times, it was appreciated that detention in custody pending completion of trial could be a cause of great hardship. From time to time, necessity demands that some unconvicted persons should be held in custody pending trial to secure their attendance at the trial but in such cases, "necessity" is the operative test. In this country, it would be quite contrary to the concept of personal liberty enshrined in the Constitution that any person should be punished in respect of any matter, upon which, he has not been convicted or that in any circumstances, he should be deprived of his liberty upon only the belief that he will tamper with the witnesses if left at liberty, save in the most extraordinary circumstances.

¶18

23. Apart from the question of prevention being the object of a refusal of bail, one must not lose sight of the fact that any imprisonment before conviction has a substantial punitive content and it would be improper for any Court to refuse bail as a mark of disapproval of former conduct whether the accused has been convicted for it or not or to refuse bail to an unconvicted person for the purpose of giving him a taste of imprisonment as a lesson."

¶19

In this matter, as is evident from the record prosecutrix is major. There are contradictions in F.I.R. version and her statements recorded under Sections 161 and 164 CrPC. F.I.R. was lodged eight days after the incident without any plausible explanation regarding delay. Applicant is in jail since 26.7.2022. Hence, keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, the dictum of Hon'ble Apex Court in the aforesaid cases as well as in the case of Dataram Singh vs. State of U.P. and another, (2018) 3 SCC 22 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 .

¶20

Let the applicant Vinod involved in Case Crime No. 273 of 2022, under Sections 376, 323, 506 IPC, P.S. Maharajpur, District - Kanpur Nagar be released on bail on 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.

¶21

(i). The applicant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.

¶22

(ii). The applicant will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness.

¶23

(iii). The applicant will appear before the trial court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted.

¶24

(iv). The applicant shall not commit an offence similar to the

¶25

offence of which he is accused, or suspected, of the commission of which he is suspected.

¶26

(v). 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 officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶27

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the prosecution shall be at liberty to move bail cancellation application before this Court.

¶28

It is made clear that the submissions and observations made in this order are only for deciding the bail application. Trial Court while deciding the trial will not be influenced with the same.

¶29

Order Date :- 1.6.2023

¶30

safi

¶31

Digitally signed by :- MAHBOOB SAFI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Vinod v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vinod 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Suab Ahmad Vs State of U.P.

Mohd. Sharafat and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Oomi @ Omprakash and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Dharamveer Vs State of U.P.

Sanjeev Yadav @ Monu Vs State of U.P.

Sandeep Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others