Vikaram @ Khuddi v. the State of U.P. Thru. Prin.Secy. Home and 3 Others

Allahabad HC8 Apr 2024/3451/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bail granted during trial; POCSO Act Sections 9m/10 with IPC Sections 354, 504; Case Crime No. 25 of 2024, Police Station Kheri, District Lakhimpur Kheri; minor victim; FIR by victim's father; applicant in custody since 25.01.2024; bail conditions including Sections 82 and 313 Cr.P.C. and Sections 229-A and 174-A IPC; Jaspreet Singh, J.; High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench; 2024:AHC-LKO:28479.

What did the court decide?

Applicant Vikaram @ Khuddi to be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond with two reliable sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned, subject to the five conditions imposed in the interest of justice; breach of any condition to be a ground for cancellation of bail. ¶¶17

Vikaram @ Khuddi Vs the State of U.P. Thru… — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Allahabad HC (2024)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶¶17

Issue for consideration

Whether the applicant, Vikaram @ Khuddi, facing trial in Case Crime No. 25 of 2024 under Sections 354, 504 I.P.C. & Sections 9m/10 of POCSO Act (Police Station Kheri, District Lakhimpur Kheri), is entitled to be released on bail during trial.

¶¶9

Court's answer

Considering the rival submissions, the facts and circumstances, the material on record, the nature of allegations and accusations, the severity of punishment if convicted, the period of incarceration, and the absence of any apprehension expressed by the learned AGA that the applicant is at risk of fleeing justice, tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses, the Court — without expressing any opinion on the merits — held the applicant entitled to be released on bail.

¶¶16

Ratio / Principle

The bail application was allowed: the applicant is to be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond with two reliable sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned, subject to five imposed conditions (undertaking against seeking adjournments when witnesses are present; presence before the trial court on each date and specifically at opening of the case, framing of charge and recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C.; no inducement, threat or promise to dissuade disclosure or tamper with evidence; liability under Section 229-A IPC for unjustified absence and under Section 174-A IPC upon misuse of bail following a Section 82 Cr.P.C. proclamation), breach of any condition being a ground for cancellation of bail.

¶¶18

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench), Court No. 14 — Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 3451 of 2024 (Neutral Citation 2024:AHC-LKO:28479), decided 8.4.2024 by Jaspreet Singh, J. Bail allowed to applicant Vikaram @ Khuddi during trial in Case Crime No. 25 of 2024, under Sections 354, 504 I.P.C. & Sections 9m/10 of POCSO Act, Police Station Kheri, District Lakhimpur Kheri (FIR by the victim's father alleging the applicant, in an intoxicated state, caught hold of his minor daughter playing near the well and misbehaved with her, fleeing when she raised an alarm). Considering the rival submissions, the nature of allegations, the severity of punishment if convicted, the period of incarceration (applicant in jail since 25.01.2024) and the absence of any AGA apprehension of flight, tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses, the Court — without expressing any opinion on the merits — held the applicant entitled to release on bail. Release directed on a personal bond with two reliable sureties each in the like amount, subject to conditions: undertaking not to seek adjournments when witnesses are present; presence before the trial court on each date and at opening of the case, framing of charge and recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C.; no inducement, threat or promise; exposure under Section 229-A IPC for unjustified absence; Section 82 Cr.P.C. proclamation and Section 174-A IPC proceedings upon misuse of bail; breach of any condition a ground for cancellation of bail.

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:28479

¶2

Court No. - 14

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 3451 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Vikaram @ Khuddi Opposite Party :- The State Of U.P. Thru. Prin.Secy. Home And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Dharm Trivedi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Jaspreet Singh,J.

¶6

Counter affidavit filed today by the learned AGA is taken on record.

¶7

It has been informed that despite service of notice on the complainant/opposite party no.2, no one has put in appearance on his behalf.

¶8

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned AGA for the State-respondent.

¶9

The instant application has been moved seeking bail in respect of Case Crime No. 25 of 2024, under Sections 354, 504 I.P.C. & Sections 9m/10 of POCSO Act, Police Station Kheri, District Lakhimpur Kheri, during trial.

¶10

It is submitted that the FIR has been lodged by the father of the victim alleging therein that his minor daughter was playing outside her house near the well. The applicant in an intoxicated state caught hold of the victim and started misbehaving with her. When the victim raised the alarm, he left her and ran away.

¶11

The submission of the learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the case. The applicant is not involved and the alleged act has also been exaggerated. It is further urged that the medical examination of the victim was refused.

¶12

It is further submitted that there are several contradictions in the statements of the victim recorded under Sections 161 and 164 CrPC which has been brought on record as Annexure-6 and from perusal thereof, it would reveal that no specific role regarding inappropriate behaviour with the victim has been attributed to the applicant. Moreover, the applicant is a family man and has no criminal history. He has been in jail since

¶13

25.01.2024. Thus in the aforesaid circumstances, the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail.

¶14

It is also urged that there is no possibility of the applicant of fleeing away after being released on bail or tampering with the witnesses. In case, the applicant is enlarged on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶15

Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail of the applicant and submitted that there is enough material to implicate the applicant and as such, the instant bail application deserves to be rejected.

¶16

Considering the rival submissions as well as the facts and circumstances of the case and the material available on record also considering the nature of allegations and accusation against the applicant, the severity of the punishment if convicted and the period of incarceration as well as the fact that no apprehension has been expressed by the learned AGA that the applicant is at the risk of fleeing justice or that he would tamper with evidence or influence any witness, hence, at this stage, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this Court is of the view that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail.

¶17

Accordingly, the instant bail application is allowed.

¶18

Let the applicant- Vikaram @ Khuddi involved in the abovementioned case crime be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond with two reliable sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned. At the time of executing required sureties, the following conditions shall be imposed in the interest of justice:-

¶19

(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.

¶20

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

¶21

(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

¶22

facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶23

(iv) 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.

¶24

(v) 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 sufficient 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.

¶25

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.

¶26

Order Date :- 8.4.2024

¶27

Shravan

¶28

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

Vikaram @ Khuddi v. the State of U.P. Thru. Prin.Secy. Home and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vikaram @ Khuddi v. the State of U.P. Thru. Prin.Secy. Home and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Mahesh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Home

Altaf Husain @ Altaf Vs State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Civil Secrt. Lko. and 3 Others

Balattar Singh and 10 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko. U.P.

Kamal Saroj Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Neelam Verma Vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Home, Lucknow

Prateek Kumar Mishra @ Prateek Mishra Vs State of U.P Thru. Addil. Chief Secy. Deptt. Home Civil Secrt. Lko.