Partly allowed

Vinay Bajpai v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko and 4 Others

Allahabad HC18 Oct 2024CRLA/3252/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal appeal against a bail refusal in a case involving rape, cheating, and creation of videos, the High Court found the prosecution case weak due to lack of medical evidence and variance in victim statements. The Court quashed the bail rejection order and released the appellant on bail subject to specific conditions.

What did the court decide?

The order dated 03.10.2024 denying bail was set aside, and the appellant was released on bail with two sureties subject to conditions regarding tampering with evidence and witness intimidation.

Vinay Bajpai vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home… — Cheating and Forgery | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:80714

¶2

Court No. - 16

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 3252 of 2024 Appellant :- Vinay Bajpai Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko And 4 Others

¶4

Counsel for Appellant :- Ajeet Kumar Singh Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Deepak Yadav,Narvind Kumar Singh

¶5

Hon'ble Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.

¶6

This criminal appeal has been filed by the appellant under Section 14A (2) the Schedule Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 to set aside the order dated 03.10.2024 passed in Bail application No. 2172/2024, arising out of case crime No. 289/2024, under Sections 64/352/354(2) (3) of BNS and Section 67 of I.T. Act and Section 3(2)(v)/3(2) (v)a/3(1)(r) of S.C./S.T. Act, Police Station Majhila, District Hardoi.

¶7

It is alleged in the prosecution case that daughter of the complainant was studying in a school and about five months ago the accused/applicant has told her daughter that he will give job to her for which he has taken her daughter with her in a hotel situated at Pihani, District Hardoi, at about 12.00 P.M. and given her some intoxication in tea and after that raped upon her and also made a video and by giving threat to her that he will make the video viral and raped her and after that the accused/applicant has given her daughter the job of teacher in his school and she has not told about that to anybody and after that about 20 days ago one co accused Abhishek Yadav has started giving threat to her daughter for making relation with him or he will make the video viral and she has denied then the co accused Abhishek Yadav has made the video viral after that they has also abused her daughter

¶8

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the victim is major. Statements recorded under Section 180 and 183 BNSS are at variance. There is no corrborative material such as medical etc. The prosecutrix is major aged about 22 years. As per her own statement, she travelled with the appellant from Hardoi to Lakhimpr Kheri without raising any alarm which shows that she was a consenting party. The applicant has no criminal antecedents. The appellant is languishing in jail since 03.09.2024.

¶9

It is lastly submitted that allegation of making video is not on the applicant rather on the co-accused and charge sheet under I.T. Act has not been filed against the present applicant. There is no likelihood that the appellant-applicant after release on bail may flee from the process of law or will misuse the liberty of bail granted by this Court.

¶10

Learned AGA as well as learned counsel for the complainant has opposed the bail application.

¶11

On due consideration to the fact that statements of the victim recorded under Section 180 and 183 BNSS are at variance; prosecution case lacks corroborative medical evidence, so also the statements of the victim which prima facie shows that she travelled with the appellant from one district to another without raising alarm, coupled with the fact that the appellant is languishing in jail since 03.09.2024 without having any criminal antecedents, I am of the view that the learned court below has failed to appreciate the material available on record. In view of above, the order passed by the court below is liable to be set aside.

¶12

Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and the order dated 03.10.2024 passed in Bail application No. 2172/2024, arising out of case crime No. 289/2024, under Sections 64/352/354(2)

¶13

(3) of BNS and Section 67 of I.T. Act and Section 3(2)(v)/3(2) (v)a/3(1)(r) of S.C./S.T. Act, Police Station Majhila, District Hardoi, is set aside.

¶14

Let the appellant-applicant/ Vinay Bajpai, involved in aforesaid case be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions:-

¶15

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

¶16

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

¶17

(iii) The appellant 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

(iv) The appellant 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.

¶19

(v) The appellant 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.

¶20

(vi) In case, the appellant 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.

¶21

Order Date :- 4.12.2024 R.C.

¶22

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

Vinay Bajpai v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vinay Bajpai v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko and 4 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

Sahil Kumar Sonkar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko

Suraj Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Lalit Kumar Tiwari and Another vs NTPC Ltd. Thru. Cmd New Delhi and 2 Others

Amitendra Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Smt. Smriti Singh and 2 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home, Lko and Another

Sunil Kumar vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and Another