Vikas Chamar vs State Of U.P.
2019 Latest Caselaw 5594 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?Court No. - 74
 

 
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 25554 of 2017
 

 
Applicant :- Vikas Chamar
 
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.
 
Counsel for Applicant :- Vipin Chandra Pandey,Ramesh Chandra Yadav
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Kunwar Mayank Singh
 

 
Hon'ble Arvind Kumar Mishra-I,J.

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material available on record.

By way of the instant application, the applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No.223 of 2016, under Sections 363, 366, 376, 506 I.P.C. and 8 POCSO Act, Police Station Asothar, District Fatehpur.

Urge made on behalf of the applicant is confined to the ambit that in this case, the incident took place on 14.07.2016 and the first information report was belatedly lodged by the informant against the applicant the very next day around 6:00 p.m. at Police Station Asothar which remained unexplained under circumstances when the informant side had already witnessed the kidnapping of the victim in the alleged incident. There are material contradictions in the statement of the victim recorded under Section 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. The victim is major and is a consenting party and the circumstances of the case when assumed to be correct will not make out any offence against the applicant.

It has been further added that in fact, there was love affair between the applicant and the victim but because of that and at the instance of the family members of the victim, she has falsely deposed against the applicant in order to save the situation to the benefit of her. In case the applicant is admitted to bail, there is no possibility of his absconding or misusing the liberty of bail. The applicant has no criminal history and is languishing in jail since 23.07.2016.

Per contra, learned A.G.A. has opposed prayer for bail and submitted that the victim is minor, aged about 12-13 years. Even in the medical examination report, her age has been assessed to be 16 years, that will not travel beyond 18 years. Assuming it to be that the victim gave contradictory statement under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. but that will not exonerate the applicant in commission of the crime.

Considered the rival submissions, perused the material brought on record and the enormity of the offence. No good ground is made out for bail.

Consequently, the instant bail application is rejected at this stage.

It is made clear that observation made in this order shall have no bearing on the merits of the case.

Order Date :- 8.7.2019

rkg