Allowed

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

Allahabad HC26 Feb 2024/9749/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal Court allowed bail to the applicant accused of enticing a minor. The court noted the victim was a consenting party based on recorded statements, there was a margin of error in age calculation, and the applicant had no criminal history. Bail was granted with standard conditions against tampering and for appearing in court.

What did the court decide?

The applicant was released on bail by furnishing a personal bond and two sureties with various conditions imposed by the court.

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

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:17386

¶2

Court No. - 14

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 9749 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Vipin Kanhaiya Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And 3 Others

¶5

Counsel for Applicant :- Sandhya Devi,Anand Kumar,Arshad Siddiqui,Babita Singh,Devendra,Prabhat Rathore Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶6

Hon'ble Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA for the State and perused the record.

¶8

It is alleged in the FIR that on 07.01.2023 at about 2:30 pm, daughter of the informant aged about 18 years has been enticed away by the applicant.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that perusal of the statements of the victim recorded under Section 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. show that the victim is a consenting party. There is no corroborative evidence in support of the prosecution case. Radiological age of the victim is 15 years.

¶10

It has been further submitted that margin of error in ascertaining age by radiological examination is two years on either side as held by Supreme Court in Jaya Mala versus Home Secretary, Government of Jammu & Kashmir and others (1982)2 SCC 538 and the applicant being the accused is entitled for giving the benefit on higher side.

¶11

It is further submitted that the applicant is languishing in jail since 19.05.2023 without having any criminal history. 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

¶12

bail.

¶13

Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the aforesaid facts as argued by the learned counsel for the applicant.

¶14

On due consideration to the statements of the victim recorded under Section 161 and 164 Cr.P.C.; lack of corroborative medical evidence in support of the prosecution case, coupled with the fact that the applicant is languishing in jail since 19.05.2023 without having any criminal history 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.

¶15

Accordingly, the bail application is allowed.

¶16

Let the applicant, Vipin Kanhaiya, involved in Case Crime/FIR No. 81/2023, under Sections 363/366/376 IPC and Section 5j(2)/6 POCSO Act, Police Station - Kotwali City, District - Hardoi, 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:-

¶17

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

¶18

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

¶19

(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.

¶20

(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.

¶21

(v) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case

¶22

of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶23

(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.

¶24

Order Date :- 26.2.2024 R.C.

¶25

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

Vipin Kanhaiya 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 Kanhaiya 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Deepak Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Rajwati Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Sectt. Lko

Santosh Yadav Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Deptt. Civil Sectt. Lko. and 3 Others

Tara Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and 3 Others

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

Roshan Lal Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Civil Secrett. Lko.