Allowed

Vipin v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC24 Oct 2024/11243/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This is an order granting anticipatory bail in a criminal matter involving sexual offences under the IPC and POCSO. The court, noting the prosecutrix's pregnancy and current residence with her in-laws alongside the applicant's clean conduct record, ordered his release on personal bond with two sureties.

What did the court decide?

The applicant was released on bail by furnishing a personal bond and two sureties with the court, subject to conditions regarding presence and non-removal from the jurisdiction.

Vipin Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy… — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:72586

¶2

Court No. - 11

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 11243 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Vipin Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Rajesh Kumar Shukla Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.

¶6

Heard Sri Rajesh Kumar Shukla, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Arun Kumar Verma, learned A.G.A. for the State and Sri Gaurav Srivastava, advocate who has filed vakalatnama on behalf of the complainant along with the counter afÏdavit which is taken on record.

¶7

As per learned counsel for the applicant, the present applicant is in jail since 28.08.2024 in Case Crime No. 0080 of 2024, under Sections 363, 366, 376 IPC & Section 5/6 of POCSO Act, Police Station- Motigarpur, District- Sultanpur.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the present applicant has been falsely implicated in the case as he has not committed any offence as alleged.

¶9

Learned counsel for the complainant has stated that the prosecutrix is more than 19 years of age but as per her educational certificates, she is aged about 17 years and 3 months old. He has further submitted that the prosecutrix is living with her inlaws as she has got married with the applicant and she is also carrying pregnancy of five months. He further stated that the prosecutrix is not willing to live with her parents and she has no grievance against the applicant or against her in-laws.

¶10

Learned counsel for the applicant has further stated that the applicant has no previous criminal history of any kind whatsoever and the applicant undertakes that he shall cooperate in the trial proceedings and shall not misuse the liberty of

¶11

bail. Further, the applicant shall abide by all terms and conditions of the bail order, the applicant may be enlarged on bail.

¶12

Learned A.G.A. has, however, opposed the prayer for bail by submitting that as per educational certificate of the prosecutrix, she has not attained the marriagable age and if she gets married with the applicant without attaining the marriagable age, such marriage would not have no effect on the merits of the case.

¶13

Therefore, without entering into merits of the issue, considering the arguments of learned counsel for the parties; contents and allegations of the FIR; since the prosecutrix is living with her inlaws and she has no further grievance against the applicant and her in-laws; she is carrying pregnancy of five months and in view of this, the applicant should be there to take good care of her; the applicant has no previous criminal history of any kind whatsoever and the undertaking of the applicant that he shall cooperate in the trial proceedings and shall not misuse the liberty of bail, I find it appropriate to release the applicant on bail.

¶14

Accordingly, the bail application is allowed .

¶15

Let the applicant- Vipin be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:-

¶16

(i) 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.

¶17

(ii) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufÏcient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229-A of the

¶18

Indian Penal Code.

¶19

(iii) 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. is issued and the 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 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶20

(iv) 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 sufÏcient 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.

¶21

(v) The applicant shall not leave India without previous permission of the court.

¶22

(Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.)

¶23

Order Date :- 24.10.2024 (Manoj K.)

¶24

Digitally signed by :- MANOJ KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Vipin v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vipin v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. 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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Rajesh Kumar Gupta @ Rajesh Kumar @ Khanna Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko

Shivam Rawat Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko.

Subham @ Subham Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko and 3 Others

Anil Kumar vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko

Babbu Singh Yadav vs Union of India Thru. CBI Lko

Shyamlal vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Secy. Lko.