Dismissed

Vishal Sahni @ Vikki v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC5 Jul 2023BAIL/7127/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Allahabad High Court rejected a bail application filed by an accused charged with offences under IPC and POCSO. The court held that the applicant is not entitled to bail given the victim's age of approximately 15 and a half years and allegations of forced relationship.

What did the court decide?

The bail application filed on behalf of Vishal Sahni @ Vikki was rejected.

Vishal Sahni @ Vikki Vs State of U.P. and 3… — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:131933

¶2

Court No. - 70

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 7127 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Vishal Sahni @ Vikki Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Mehendra Kumar Singh,Sunil Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Kumar Ankit Srivastava

¶5

Hon'ble Sameer Jain,J.

¶6

Heard Sri Sunil Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Kumar Ankit Srivastava, learned counsel for the informant and Dr.S.B.Maurya, learned AGA-I, for the State.

¶7

The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant with the prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No.0168 of 2022, under Sections 363,366, 376(3) and 506 IPC and Section 3/4 POCSO Act, Police Station Sindhaura, District Varanasi during pendency of the trial.

¶8

FIR of the present case was lodged against unknown persons under Section 363 IPC and according to the FIR, on 16.7.2022 minor daughter of the informant aged about 15 years has gone from her home without informing anyone.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant was not named in the FIR but during investigation when the statement of victim was recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. then she disclosed the name of applicant and from the statement of the victim recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. it is apparent that she was the consenting party.

¶10

He further submits that although in the statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. victim under the pressure of her parents changed her earlier statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and stated that under the threat and pressure of

¶11

applicant she had gone along with him but even from the perusal of the statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. it cannot be ruled out that she was not consenting party. He further submits that although as the educational certificate and the CMO report, the victim is around 15 and 1/2 years old but as applicant is also aged about 22 years and both loved each other therefore, considering this fact, applicant may be enlarged on bail.

¶12

Per contra, learned AGA as well as learned counsel for the informant vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that from the educational record as well as from the report of the CMO it is apparent that victim is hardly about 15 and 1/2 years old and she in both the statements recorded under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. categorically stated that applicant forcibly made relationship with her and, therefore, considering the age of victim and the allegation made by her against the applicant, applicant is not entitled to be released on bail.

¶13

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

¶14

Although victim in her statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. stated that she was having love affairs with applicant but in both the statements recorded under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. she stated that applicant against her wish made physical relationship with her and further as per the educational record and the report of CMO, it appears that victim is hardly 15 and 1/2 years old, therefore, considering the age of the victim, in my view, applicant is not entitled to be released on bail.

¶15

Accordingly, the instant bail application is rejected at this stage.

¶16

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

¶17

bearing on the merits of the case during trial. Order Date :- 5.7.2023

¶18

SKM

¶19

Digitally signed by :- SHRAVANA KUMAR MISHRA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Vishal Sahni @ Vikki v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vishal Sahni @ Vikki 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Radhey Shyam Vs State of U.P.

Digvijay Yadav Vs State of U.P.

Suraj @ Ballu Vs State of U.P.

Ramgiri @ Ram Das Vs State of U.P.

Gufran Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Chandrapal Vs State of U.P