Allowed

Veeru Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. I.O. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC2 Jan 2024/6728/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court allowed bail to Veeru Singh, accused of rape and POCSO violations, despite prosecution alleging non-consent and medical signs of violence. Court relied on statement discrepancies, applicant's criminal history, and decision to await trial court findings on merits.

What did the court decide?

Relief granted: Release on bail with personal bond and two sureties; conditions imposed to prevent tampering with evidence and interfering with witnesses.

Veeru Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. I.O. and 3 Others — Cheating and Forgery | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:454

¶2

Court No. - 14

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 6728 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Veeru Singh Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. I.O. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Atul Verma,Hari Krishna Verma,Kanchan Verma Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Avinash Chandra Tiwari,Dinesh Kumar Yadav,Indra Jeet Yadav,Indrajeet Yadav,Siddharth Sharma

¶5

Hon'ble Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA for the State as well as learned counsel for the complainant.

¶7

Prosecution case is that the victim is a student of class 12 of Lucknow Public School and her date of birth is 01.07.2005. It is alleged that the victim got acquainted with the applicant Veeru Singh two years back while taking coaching. It is also alleged that the applicant posted some of her photographs on its instagram page which was objected by the victim and he also threatened the victim to defame her. It has been further alleged that on 22.01.2023 while the victim was going on a rikshaw, the accused came on the motor bike and asked to accompany him with a promise to return her photograph and further assured to remove her display picture from his instagram page and his assurance, she went with him to hotel Haven Grand where she was allegedly raped and when she tried to object, she was beaten with a belt.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the FIR has been lodged after a delay of three days. There is no explanation to the delay. He further submits that the statement of the victim under Section 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. are different. Perusal of the statements under Section 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. show that the victim was a consenting party. Both the applicant and the victim were having relationship for the last two years as per the statement of the prosecutrix herself. As per the school record, she is 17 years and six months old.

¶9

It has been further submitted that the victim is major and i.e. why no ossification test of the victim has been conducted. The applicant is also a youngster of twenty years old.

¶10

It has been further submitted that perusal of the CCTV footage recorded in the case diary shows that both were consenting

¶11

party which is on record as Annexure No. CA-7 to the counter affidavit. No sign of physical violence has been found in the medical examination of the victim, rather, on the contrary, several signs shown by the doctor points towards the consensual relationship.

¶12

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

¶13

Learned AGA and learned counsel for the complainant have opposed the bail application submitting that medical corroborates the prosecution case. There are signs of physical violence.

¶14

Rebutting the same, learned counsel for the applicant submits that as per the opinion of the doctor there are no sign of sexual violence, although, there are minor injuries which are simple in nature on the other parts of the body and for that the case will not travel beyond Section 323 IPC.

¶15

On due consideration to the medical examination report; the statement of the victim under Section 161 and 164 Cr.P.C., so also the fact that the applicant has no criminal history and he is languishing in jail since 27.01.2023; charge sheet in the case has been filed and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I find it to be a fit case for enlarging the applicant on bail.

¶16

Accordingly, the bail application is allowed.

¶17

Let the applicant, Veeru Singh, involved in Case Crime/FIR No. 58/2023, under Sections 376/342/323/120-B IPC and Section 5/6 POCSO Act, Police Station - Thakurganj, District - Lucknow, be released on bail 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 which are being imposed in the interest of justice:-

¶18

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

¶19

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

¶20

(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

¶21

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

¶22

(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.

¶23

(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.

¶24

(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.

¶25

Order Date :- 2.1.2024 R.C.

¶26

Digitally signed by :- RAM CHANDER YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Veeru Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. I.O. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Veeru Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. I.O. 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

Mohd. Anees Vs State of U.P.

Mohammad Aleem Vs State of U.P.

Mohd.Aneesh and Another Vs State of U.P.

Jaikaran Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Rizwan Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Govt. of U.P. Civil Sectt. Lko. and 3 Others

Pawan Pasi Vs State of U.P. Thru.Prin.Secy. Home and 3 Others