Allowed

Vimal Pandey v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC15 Apr 2024/3023/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a bail application under multiple charges including POCSO and SC/ST Act, the High Court granted bail to the accused, noting discrepancies in the victim's statement and lack of corroborative evidence as key factors while framing standard bail conditions.

What did the court decide?

Release of the applicant on bail conditioned on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties, with undertakings against tampering with evidence, intimidating witnesses, and ensuring timely participatio

Vimal Pandey Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl… — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:29846

¶2

Court No. - 15

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 3023 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Vimal Pandey Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Of Home Lko. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Onkar Pandey,Arjun Gupta,Pooja Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State as well as perused the record. No one has appeared for the complainant although notices are served.

¶7

The present bail application has been filed by accused-applicant seeking bail in Case Crime No.422 of 2023 under Section 363, 376D, 342, 506 Indian Penal Code, Section 5/6 POCSO Act and Section 3(2)(v) of S.C./S.T. Act, Police Station Para, District Lucknow.

¶8

It is alleged in the F.I.R. that the daughter of the informant went away from home at 10.00 a.m. on 17.12.2023 for coaching. After coaching she went towards Budheshwar crossing and from there she did not come. Apprehension has been made in the First Information Report that she might have been kidnapped, raped and killed by administering some intoxicating substance.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the victim in her statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. has named two persons who have allegedly committed rape upon her, however, while giving statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. improvement has been made by the victim and third persons have also been introduced. He submits that the victim in her statement has made improvement and therefore does not inspire confidence. There is no corroborative medical evidence or any other corroborative material in support of the prosecution case. The case set up by the prosecution is highly improbable. The applicant has no criminal history.

¶10

Learned A.G.A. has opposed the bail prayer of the applicant, however, he does not dispute the improvement made by the victim in her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C.. He further submits that in the opinion of the doctor, after medical

¶11

examination, no sign of violence or struggle has been seen on the body of the victim except scratch mark on the left side of the face.

¶12

Learned counsel for the applicant has further submitted that coaccused Mausam Pal, against whom similar allegations have been leveled, has been granted bail vide order dated 20.04.2024 passed in Criminal Misc Bail Application No.1605 of 2024

¶13

Learned A.G.A. does not dispute the aforesaid aspect.

¶14

On due consideration to the submissions advanced, perusal of the record as also the facts that the applicant is languishing in jail since 21.12.2023, improvement made by the victim while giving statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C., lack of corroborative material in support of the prosecution case and without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, I find it to be a fit case for enlarging the applicant on bail.

¶15

Accordingly, the bail application is allowed. Let the applicant Vimal Pandey be released on bail in aforesaid case crime number subject to his furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court concerned with the following conditions:

¶16

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

¶17

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

¶18

(iii) 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.

¶19

(iv) 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.

¶20

(v) 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 sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶21

(vi) 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.

¶22

Order Date :- 15.4.2024 prateek

¶23

Digitally signed by :- PRATEEK ARORA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Vimal Pandey v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vimal Pandey v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of 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

Raj Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Jumman and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 3 Others

Mukesh Jain Alias Baua Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Civil Secrt. Lko. and Another

Santosh Yadav Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home, Civil Secrtt. Lko.

Gobind Chandra Patra (as in the Fir ) (Gobind Chandra Patra as in the Adhar ) Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Saurav Jaiswal @ Saurabh Jaiswal and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home Lko. and 2 Others