Allowed

Vipati v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy./Addl. Chief Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC5 Dec 2024BAIL/6295/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a bail application filed by Vipati accused under Sections 363, 366 IPC and POCSO for enticing a minor. The court granted bail conditioned on the filing of a personal bond and two sureties, noting discrepancies in the victim's statement.

What did the court decide?

The applicant is released on bail upon furnishing a personal bond and two sureties in the like amount, subject to specific conditions.

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

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:81457

¶2

Court No. - 15

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 6295 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Vipati Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy./Addl. Chief Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Mahendra Pratap Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Shree Prakash Singh,J.

¶6

From perusal of the ordersheet, it transpires that on 13.06.2024, the notice was issued to respondent no. 2 but no one has put in appearance till date. Under the aforesaid circumstances, the Court is proceeding in this matter.

¶7

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

¶8

The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant with the prayer to release him on bail during the trial in FIR/Case Crime No. 412 of 2023, under Sections 363, 366 IPC and Sections 11/12 of POCSO Act, Police Station Tikait Nagar, District Barabanki.

¶9

As per the prosecution story, the victim, while enticing away by the applicant, had also taken away the jewellery amounting Rs.50,000/- with her. It has been contended that the applicant is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the instant matter due to ulterior motive. He further submits that though the victim is minor, but her statements recorded under Section 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. demolished the prosecution story, as from her statements, it transpires that she went with the applicant out of her own sweet-will and, thus, the ingredients of Sections 363 and 366 IPC would not attract in the present case. He also added that the present applicant is named in the FIR because of enmity in between the parties and the applicant has no previous criminal history as is mentioned in Paragraph no. 19 of the bail application and he is languishing in jail since 14.10.2023 and he undertakes that in case, he is granted bail, he will not misuse the liberty of the same and would cooperate in the trial proceedings.

¶10

Per contra, learned AGA appearing for the State has opposed the contentions aforesaid and submits that the applicant has enticed away a minor girl and has committed the offence and as such, he is not entitled for grant of bail.

¶11

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after perusal of material placed on record, it transpires that the victim had taken away the jewellery amounting Rs. 50,000/- when she was allegedly enticed away by the applicant; the statements of the victim recorded under Section 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. do not support the prosecution version, as she has stated that she went with the applicant out of her own freewill; the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case due to anonymity in between the parties; the applicant has no previous criminal history, coupled with the fact that he is languishing in jail since 14.10.2023 and he has undertaken that in case, he is granted bail, he will not misuse the liberty of same and would cooperate in the trial proceedings.

¶12

Considering the submissions of learned counsels for the parties, nature of accusation and severity of punishment in case of conviction, nature of supporting evidence, prima facie satisfaction of the Court in support of the charge, reformative theory of punishment and considering larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India and, without expressing any view on the merits of the case, I find it to be a fit case of bail.

¶13

Let the applicant- Vipati involved in the aforementioned crime 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:-

¶14

(1) The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence by intimidating/ pressurizing the witnesses, or otherwise during the investigation or trial;

¶15

(2) 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. He 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;

¶16

(3) 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.; and

¶17

(4) 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, the trial court shall

¶18

initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶19

The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be verified by the court concerned and in case of breach of any of the above conditions, the court below shall be at liberty to cancel the bail and send the applicant to prison.

¶20

It is clarified that the observations made in this order are strictly confined to the disposal of this bail application and must not be construed to have any reflection on the merits of the case.

¶21

Order Date :- 5.12.2024 kkv/

¶22

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

Vipati v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy./Addl. Chief Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vipati v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy./Addl. Chief Secy. Home Deptt. 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

Sharvan Kumar and Another Vs the State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

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

Virendra Kumar Shukla Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Revenue , Lucknow and Others

Rajendra Patel @ Bacholi vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home Lko.

Vijay Kant Verma vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Shailesh Rastogi vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Civil Sectt. Lko.