Allahabad High Court
Pranshu Alias Poot Alas Vijayee vs State Of U.P. And Another on 9 June, 2022
Bench: Shekhar Kumar Yadav
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 52
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 3052 of 2021
Revisionist :- Pranshu Alias Poot Alas Vijayee
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Revisionist :- Tej Om Prakash Gupta
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Anil Kumar Shukla,Tribhuwan Singh
Hon'ble Shekhar Kumar Yadav,J.
Heard Sri Tej Om Prakash Gupta, learned counsel for the revisionist / applicant, Sri Tribhuwan Singh, learned counsel for the informant / opposite party no. 2 and the learned A.G.A. for the State. Perused the record.
By means of this bail application the revisionist / applicant has prayed to set aside the judgment and order dated 15.7.2021 passed by Principal Magistrate Juvenile Justice Board, Kanpur Dehat in Bail Application No. 35 of 2021 (State Vs. Poot alias Pranshu alias Vijayee) and order dated 21.8.2021 passed by Additional Sessions Judge (Rape and Pocso Act), Court No. 15, Kanpur Dehat in Criminal Appeal No. 35 of 2021 (Pranshu alias Poot alias Vijayee Vs. State of U.P.) in Case Crime No. 35 of 2021 at Police Station-Rajpur, District-Kanpur Dehat, under sections 354, 323, 452, 504, 506 IPC and Section 7/8 of the POCSO Act. The applicant is in jail since 4.4.2021.
The bail application of the revisionist / applicant was rejected by Principal Magistrate Juvenile Justice Board, Kanpur Dehat on 15.7.2021.
Shri Tej Om Prakash Gupta, learned counsel for the revisionist / applicant contends that the revisionist / applicant has been falsely implicated in the instant case. As per Juvenile Court, revisionist was juvenile at the time of alleged incident as he was only 15 years 27 days. That an F.I.R. was lodged against three accused persons including the revisionist / applicant- Pranshu, Honey @ Shivam and Babu @ Himanshu Kumar under sections 354, 452, 323, 504 & 506 I.P.C. The report of the Probation Officer stated that, the revisionist / applicant was studying in Class 11th. Co-accused, Babu @ Himanshu Kumar and Honey @ Shivam have already been granted bail vide order dated 31.3.2022 and 4.4.2022 in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 12432 of 2022 and Crl. Misc. Bail Application No. 13128 of 2022, respectively, both the bail orderes annexed in Supplementary Affidavit as Annexure -1. He further submits that there are contradictions in the F.I.R. as well as in the statement of the informant. False allegations of offences under the POCSO Act have been made only to aggravate the offence. Learned counsel for the revisionist / applicant contends that the revisionist / applicant does not have any criminal history apart from the instant case. Lastly, it is contended by the learned counsel for revisionist / applicant that the revisionist / applicant shall not abscond and will cooperate in the criminal law proceedings. The revisionist / applicant shall not tamper with the evidence nor influence the witnesses in any manner.
Learned A.G.A. as well as Shri Tribhuwan Singh, learned counsel for the informant could not satisfactorily dispute the aforesaid submissions from the record. They, however, do not dispute the fact that the revisionist / applicant does not have any criminal history apart from this case.
I see merit in the submissions of the learned counsel for the revisionist / applicant and hold that the revisionist / applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail.
In the light of the preceding discussion and without making any observations on the merits of the case, the bail application is allowed.
Let the revisionist / applicant- Pranshu @ Poot @ Vijayee be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions.
(i) The revisionist / applicant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.
(ii) The revisionist / applicant will not influence any witness.
(iii) The revisionist / applicant will appear before the trial court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted.
(iv) The revisionist / applicant shall not directly or indirectly make 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 to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.
In case of breach of any of the above condition, the prosecution shall be at liberty to move bail cancellation application before this Court.
Order Date :- 9.6.2022
Vibha Singh
