Allowed

Vinod Kashyap v. State of U.P. Thru.Its Prin. Secy. H. and 3 Ors.

Allahabad HC24 Jan 2024/284/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application wherein the Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench, allowed the application for release of Vinod Kashyap. The court noted medical evidence showed no penetrative assault and prima facie allegations did not constitute offences under IPC or POCSO, allowing bail on bonds.

What did the court decide?

Released on bail with personal bond and two sureties of Rs. 25,000 each, undertaking to attend hearings, commit no similar offence, and not tamper with evidence.

Vinod Kashyap Vs State of U.P. Thru.Its… — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:7261

¶2

Court No. - 12

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 284 of 2022

¶4

Applicant :- Vinod Kashyap Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru.Its Prin. Secy. H. And 3 Ors. Counsel for Applicant :- Gaurav Shukla,Saroj Kumar Shukla

¶5

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A., Devendra Nath Upadhyay, Santosh Kumar Tripathi

¶6

Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned A.G.A. and perused the record. None turned up on behalf of the complainant despite service of notice.

¶8

2 . In terms of the FIR, it was alleged that on 03.10.2021 the applicant had committed wrong on the daughter of the informant, who was aged about five years.

¶9

3 . The counsel for the applicant draws my attention to the statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C., wherein it was alleged that an attempt was made, however medical on record demonstrates that the hymen was intact, thus, there was no penetrative sexual assault. In the statement recorded during trial the victim as well as the informant have not supported the prosecution story. The applicant has no criminal history and is in custody since 07.10.2021.

¶10

4. Learned A.G.A. opposed the bail prayer.

¶11

5. Considering the said statements and the fact that prima facie , the allegations do not constitute an offence under Section 376 IPC or Section 3/4 POCSO Act coupled with the fact that the applicant has no criminal history and is in custody since

¶12

07.10.2021 and there is nothing on record to demonstrate that the applicant if enlarged on bail, would in any way adversely affect the trial and without expressing any opinion on merit, I am of the view that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed .

¶13

6. Let the applicant Vinod Kashyap be released on bail in FIR/ Case Crime No. 0509 of 2021, under Section 376 IPC and Section 5/6 POCSO Act, Police Station Gazipur, District Lucknow, on his furnishing personal bonds and two reliable sureties of Rs.25,000/- each to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:

¶14

(a) The applicant shall execute a bond to undertake to attend the hearings;

¶15

(b) The applicant shall not commit any offence similar to the offence of which he is accused or suspected of the commission; and

¶16

(c) 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 ofÏcer or tamper with the evidence.

¶17

Order Date :- 24.1.2024 Arun

¶18

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

Vinod Kashyap v. State of U.P. Thru.Its Prin. Secy. H. and 3 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vinod Kashyap v. State of U.P. Thru.Its Prin. Secy. H. and 3 Ors.

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

Satya Prakash Mishra Alias Rahul Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Govt. U.P. Lko.

Ravendra Mishra Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Priya Mishra Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Santosh @ Sandeep Vs State of U.P.

Shiv Nandan Shukla Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt., Civil Secrt. Lko.

Arbi Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko.