Allowed

Vijay Srivastava @ Pawan Srivastava v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC4 Sept 2024BAIL/9329/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This is a bail application where the applicant sought release in connection with offences including abetment to suicide, cheating, and POCSO violations. The court found no prima facie evidence of abetment or induction to part with security. Relying on Mariano Anto Bruno, the application was allowed with conditions.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail in FIR No.415 of 2024 by furnishing personal bond with two sureties of Rs.20,000/- each.

Vijay Srivastava @ Pawan Srivastava vs… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:60677

¶2

Court No. - 12

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 9329 of 2024 Applicant :- Vijay Srivastava @ Pawan Srivastava Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And 3 Others

¶4

Counsel for Applicant :- Alok Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J.

¶6

1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA for the State; Shri Shitesh Jha, learned counsel for respondent no.2 and perused the record.

¶7

2. The applicant seeks enlargement on bail in FIR No.415 of 2024, under Section 305, 376(3), 506, 193, 420 IPC & Section 4(2) of POCSO Act, P.S. Kotwali Sadar, District Lakhimpur Kheri.

¶8

3. In terms of the FIR it was alleged that daughter of the informant aged about 15 years was a student when the coaccused enticed her and committed wrong on her and also used to threaten her to make the videos and photos viral. It was also stated that when the daughter of the informant had informed these facts to her, she tried to counsel with the co-accused, however, things did not improve. It was stated that subsequently, on 20.05.2024, the co-accused threatened and called the victim where the other two co-accused including the applicant, were present, and asked her to form physical relations with them also which was refused upon which a threat was issued to make the videos and photos viral and subsequently, she committed suicide by coming in front of the train. In the light of the said, it is argued that the applicant is proposed to be tried for the offence under Section 305, 506, 420, 193 IPC.

¶9

4. In the light of the said, learned counsel for the applicant draws my attention to the statement of the driver of the train wherein he had stated that on the track three boys and one girl were standing and on the honking of the horn, the said three boys went away from the track whereas the girl kept standing on the track whereupon she met with the accident and subsequent death. It is argued by learned counsel for the applicant that assuming all the allegations to be true for the stake of present bail application, no offence can be said to have been committed under Section 305 read with Section 420 IPC which are the major offences. He argues that there is no abetment at the instance of the applicant as defined under

¶10

Section 107 IPC.

¶11

5. Learned AGA has opposed the bail application by arguing that the applicant had made a fake User ID on the Instagram and used to communicate through that fake name, as such, Section 406 and 420 IPC were added, and as the applicant were present on the track at the time of the accident, the applicant has been implicated under Section 305 IPC.

¶12

6. Learned counsel for the informant states that CDR location of the applicant was also found near the track where the incident took place.

¶13

7. Considering the submissions made at the Bar, in terms of the offence specified under Section 406 and 420 IPC, prima-facie , there is no material to suggest that the applicant had induced any person to part with a valuable security; as regards Section 305 IPC, there is no material to suggest abetment as defined under Section 107 IPC. As such, considering the law as explained in the case of Mariano Anto Bruno and Anr. v. Inspector of Police; 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1387 , the applicant who is in custody since 23.05.2024 and has no criminal history, is entitled to be enlarged on bail. In view thereof, the application is allowed.

¶14

8. Let the applicant Vijay Srivastava @ Pawan Srivastava be released on bail in aforesaid FIR number on his furnishing a personal bond with two sureties of Rs.20,000/- each to the satisfaction of court concerned with the following conditions:

¶15

(a) The applicant shall execute a bond to undertake to attend the hearings;

¶16

(b) The applicant shall not commit any offence similar to the offence of which he is accused or suspected of the commission; and

¶17

(c) 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.

¶18

Order Date :- 4.9.2024 nishant

¶19

Digitally signed by :- NISHANT MOHAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Vijay Srivastava @ Pawan Srivastava v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vijay Srivastava @ Pawan Srivastava 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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Shyamu Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko and 3 Others

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

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

Kamlesh vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Civil Sectt. Lko

Amir vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Kamlesh vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko