Allahabad High Court
Vipin Kumar Gupta vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others on 9 April, 2025
Author: Samit Gopal
Bench: Samit Gopal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:51437 Court No. - 64 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 5841 of 2025 Applicant :- Vipin Kumar Gupta Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Sudhakar Shukla Counsel for Opposite Party :- Ashish Kumar Dubey,G.A.,Rajesh Chandra Dwivedi Hon'ble Samit Gopal,J.
1. List revised.
2. Heard Sri Sudhakar Shukla, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri V.K. Ojha, Advocate holding brief of Sri Ashish Kumar Dubey, learned counsel for the first informant/opposite party no.4, Ms. Preeti Yadav, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2/High Court Legal Service Committee and Sri V.D. Ojha, learned counsel for the State/opposite party no.1 and perused the material on record.
3. This bail application under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure/483 BNSS has been filed by the applicant Vipin Kumar Gupta, seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No. 214 of 2024, under Sections 354, 323, 506, 356, 376 IPC and Section 3/4 and 7/8 POCSO Act and Section 3(2)(v) SC/ST Act, registered at P.S. Sachendi, District Kanpur Nagar.
4. The FIR of the matter was lodged on 29.06.2024 under Sections 354, 323, 506, 356 IPC and Section 7/8 POCSO Act by Vijay Kumar against the applicant alleging therein that his daughter was being troubled since last four months by the applicant. On 26.06.2024 in his cosmetic shop, the accused applicant came and assaulted his daughter and snatched away her mobile phone. He was forcing his daughter to marry him whereas he is already married and having a child. On refusal by the informant he threatened him and his daughter. FIR be lodged and action be taken.
5. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is submitted that the present case is a case of consent. It is submitted that subsequently in the statement of the victim recorded under Sections 161 Cr.P.C. and 164 Cr.P.C. for the first time she states that the applicant committed rape upon her. It is submitted that the said fact is missing in the FIR. It is submitted that the implication of the applicant in the present matter is with malafide intentions. It is further submitted that the applicant is aged about 25 years and is working in D.J. and sound system to maintain his family. It is submitted that the applicant has not made any video or photographs of the victim, para 23 of the affidavit has been placed. It is submitted that the applicant has no criminal history as stated in para 31 of the affidavit and is in jail since 07.08.2024.
6. Per contra, learned counsel for the first informant and learned counsel for the State opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that the victim is a minor girl and as per High School Marksheet of the U.P. Board Education her date of birth is given therein 07.07.2006. It is submitted that the victim has levelled allegations of rape against the applicant. It is further submitted that charge sheet has been submitted against the applicant under the provisions of I.T. Act also apart from the sections in the bail application mentioned. It is submitted that during investigation, the Investigating Officer has recovered mobile phone of the applicant from which he has recovered the objectionable photographs of the victim which were transmitted and also some videos which are the part of the case diary. It is submitted that since the victim is a minor girl, her consent cannot be looked into. It is submitted that there is no reason for false implication of the applicant and as such the prayer for bail of the applicant be rejected.
7. After having heard learned counsels for the parties and perusing the records, it is evident that the victim is a minor girl. Consent of a minor is of no worth. The applicant is being prosecuted under the provisions of I.T. Act also. There is a recovery of mobile of the applicant in which photographs of the victim were recovered in objectionable nature which have also been transmitted on various dates. The victim has levelled allegations of rape against the applicant. I do not find it a fit case for bail.
8. Considering the totality of the case in particular, nature of evidence available on record, I am not inclined to release the applicant on bail.
9. The bail application is, accordingly, rejected.
Order Date :- 9.4.2025/M. ARIF (Samit Gopal, J.)