Vimal Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home, Lko. and Others

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:56868

Court No. - 12

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 741 of 2024

Applicant :- Vimal Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home, Lko. And Others Counsel for Applicant :- Brijesh Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA and perused the record. None appears for the opposite party no. 2 despite notice.

¶7

The applicant seeks enlargement on bail in Case Crime No. 660 of 2022, under Sections 376 D.A. IPC and 5G/6 (2) POCSO Act, 2012 registered at Police Station - Mohammadi, District - Lakhimpur Kheri.

¶8

In terms of the FIR, it was alleged that on 10.09.2022 at about 09:30 PM, the sister of the informant aged about 15 years was going to give food to her grandmother, when the accused named in the FIR including the applicant held her in a sugarcane field and thereafter committed wrong on her and when the mother and sister of the informant went to search her, all the said persons ran away. It was also stated that the sister of the informant was found in unconscious condition. The medical on record done of the victim, found the hymen to be freshly torn and the medical opinion was expressed that there are use of forceful penetration present on the victim.

¶9

Learned Counsel for the applicant argues that during the trial, the victim in her cross-examination has stated that she could not identify the accused at the time of the incident, however, from the record it transpires that there are two other eye witnesses named in the charge sheet.

¶10

Learned AGA has vehemently opposed the bail application and submitted that the crime committed by the accusedapplicant is heinous and the medical report affirms the prosecution story, therefore, the applicant is not entitled to be enlarged on bail.

¶11

Considering the fact that the medical report on record

¶12

corroborates the allegations of the offence, prima facie, alleged to have been committed by the applicant and the two fact witnesses are yet to be examined, therefore, this Court is of the view that there is no good ground to allow this bail application. In view thereof, the bail application is rejected .

¶13

However, the trial Court is directed to ensure that the statement of the two eye witnesses, Smt. Usha Devi & Shri Narveer are recorded without giving any unnecessary adjournment within a period of two months from today.

¶14

The Superintendent of Police, Lakhimpur Kheri is directed to ensure that the said two witnesses are produced for their deposition before the trial Court without fail.

¶15

The applicant would be at liberty to revive his bail plea after statement of the said witnesses are recorded.

¶16

Order Date :- 20.8.2024 Lokesh Kumar

¶17

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

Vimal v. State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home, Lko. and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vimal v. State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home, Lko. and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Raj Kumari @ Ram Kumari Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko

Sayeed Ahamd Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko.

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

Jai Ram vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home, Lucknow and 3 Others

Vimal vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home, Lko. and Others

Amit Savita @ Anshu vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy., Home Deptt., Lucknow and Others