Vinay Alias Sahwag vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:45665

Court No. - 65

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 10363 of 2025

Applicant :- Vinay Alias Sahwag Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Rupendra Kumar Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.

¶6

List has been revised.

¶7

Heard Sri Rupendra Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Jai Kishan Chaurasia, learned State Law Officer for the State and perused the material placed on record.

¶8

Learned A.G.A. has informed that the notice to the informant has been served on 23.03.2025.

¶9

Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No.327 of 2024, under Sections 65(1), 96 B.N.S., 2023, and 5/6 POCSO Act, Police Station Kanth, District Moradabad, during the pendency of trial.

¶10

As per prosecution story, the applicant is stated to have abducted the victim on 21.08.2024 when she had gone to market for purchasing certain household goods and had thrown her near her house on 22.08.2024 at about 4:00 a.m. The victim suspected that something untoward has been committed with her.

¶11

Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the applicant is absolutely innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. The FIR is delayed by about eleven hours and there is no explanation of the said delay caused. The victim is a consenting party as far as the applicant is concerned. She has categorically stated in her statement recorded under Section 183 B.N.S.S. that she befriended the applicant and had established corporeal relationship with him several times and on 22.08.2028, she had gone to the house of a friend of the applicant and established corporeal relationship with him. She has further stated that the mother of the applicant reached there and assaulted her after inquiring about the incident.

¶12

Learned counsel for the applicant has also stated that there is no allegation of rape or assault being committed with the victim against the applicant. The victim is stated to be about 15 years and 2 months old as per her class-VI^th school certificate as her date of birth is mentioned to be 30.05.2009. The said certificate of classVI^th has no evidentiary value being barred by Section 94 of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act. There is no criminal history of the applicant. The applicant is languishing in jail since 23.08.2024 and he is ready to cooperate with trial. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶13

Learned State Law Officer has vehemently opposed the bail application.

¶14

In the case of P. Yuvaprakash vs State Rep. by Inspector of Police, AIR 2023 SC 3525 , the Supreme Court has observed that in the absence of records relating to the birth of the victim, no other documents except the Matriculation or equivalent certificate from the concerned examination board or certificate by a corporation, municipal authority or a Panchayat can be relied upon to ascertain the age of the victim.

¶15

The Supreme Court in the case of Niranjan Singh and another vs. Prabhakar Rajaram Kharote and Others, AIR 1980 SC 785 has avoided detailed examination of the evidence and elaborate documentation of the merits of the case as no party should have the impression that his case has been prejudiced. A prima facie satisfaction of case is needed but it is not the same as an exhaustive exploration of the merits in the order itself.

¶16

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, the evidence on record, and taking into consideration the settled law of the Supreme Court passed in Satender Kumar Antil vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and Ors., 2022 INSC 690 and Manish Sisodia vs. Directorate of Enforcement, 2024 INSC 595 and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed .

¶17

Let the applicant- Vinay Alias Sahwag , who is involved in aforementioned case 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 subject to following conditions.

¶18

Further, before issuing the release order, the sureties be verified.

¶19

(i) The applicant shall not tamper with evidence.

¶20

(ii) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the Trial Court on dates fixed for (1) opening of the case, (2) framing of charge and (3) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C./351 B.N.S.S. If in the opinion of the Trial Court absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the Trial Court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law.

¶21

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.

¶22

It is made clear that observations made in granting bail to the applicant shall not in any way affect the learned trial Judge in forming his independent opinion based on the testimony of the witnesses.

¶23

Order Date :- 2.4.2025

¶24

(Ravi Kant)

¶25

(Justice Krishan Pahal)

¶26

Digitally signed by :- RAVI KANT High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Vinay Alias Sahwag v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vinay Alias Sahwag v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vimlesh Dubey @ Rahul Dubey vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Harsh @ Harish vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Arun Pratap Singh @ Lalaiya vs State of U.P. and Another

Uttam @ Vimal vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Lantesh vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Kamal vs State of U.P. and 3 Others