The High Court granted bail to the applicant, Raj Yadav, accused of abduction and sexual assault under IPC and POCSO. The court accepted his undertaking to remain in Deoria except for trial appearances and dismissed police misconduct allegations in the bond terms.
Release on bail personally and through two sureties subject to conditions of residence and attendance.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 43
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 35331 of 2015
Applicant :- Raj Yadav Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Abhishek Tripathi,Anand Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate,Vijay Bahadur Maurya
Hon'ble Pradeep Kumar Singh Baghel,J.
The applicant is an accused under Sections 363, 366, 376(2)(g) IPC and 3/4 Protection of Children from Sexual Offence Act, 2012. The said case is registered as Case Crime No. 282 of 2014 at Police Station Manjhanpur, District Kaushambi.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that on 6.10.2015 the learned A.G.A. was granted four weeks' time to file counter affidavit but the counter affidavit has been filed today. It is taken on record.
It is stated that in the counter affidavit there is no averment that the applicant has any criminal history. A first information report was lodged on 20.5.2014 by one Ram Chandra Maurya that his daughter, who is minor, was enticed away by one Irshad Ali, against whom a first information report was lodged on 29.4.2014 at Police Station Saini, District Kaushambi under Sections 363, 366 I.P.C.. The girl was recovered on 31.4.2014 ( sic ). She was given in police custody on 1.5.2014 for her medical examination and was sent in District Hospital, Manjhanpur for medical.
It is alleged that the police did not send the girl for four days for medical examination nor it produced before the Magistrate. Some allegations have been made against the police also. On 4.5.2014 at 07:00 p.m. his daughter along with another girl was again kidnapped. In the said incident one Maksood Ali son of Samirullah, resident of Aminpur Sawro, P.S. Karari, District Kaushambi, Pappu alias Mohd. Usman, resident of Bachchan Ali, resident of Pindra, Sahabanpur, P.S. Karari, District Kaushambi; and Yusuf son of Niyaz Ahmad, resident of Village Thamha Afzalpur, P.S. Karari, District Kaushambi were named. In the first information report the applicant's name has not been mentioned. The applicant has been implicated on the basis of statement of prosecutrix under Section 164 Cr.P.C..
Learned counsel for the applicant has drawn my attention to the said statement wherein the prosecutrix has made an allegation against him that he met the girl at Bus-stand Kanpur and gave his mobile phone her to talk to her father. Thereafter, he took the girl to his residence and kept her for one and half months. During the said period he sexually assaulted her.
It is submitted that the applicant has been falsely implicated as in the F.I.R. several other persons have been named and the applicant's name does not figure
therein.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is ready to give an undertaking that he will not live in District Kanpur or Kaushambi where the trial is under progress. His undertaking is taken on record. The home district of the applicant is Deoria and the applicant undertakes that he will live in his home district Deoria only and will not leave the district without informing the S.H.O., Kotwali, District Deoria which is his permanent residence.
It is stated that two separate trials have been consolidated hence it is likely to take considerable time to conclude the trial.
I have carefully perused the statements of the prosecutrix under Section 164 Cr.P.C. and other material available on record. The Court is conscious of the fact that the prosecutrix is minor and there are serious allegations of rape against the applicant but in the facts and circumstances of this case and in view of the undertaking given by the applicant, he is directed to be enlarged on bail during the pendency of the trial.
Let the applicant, Raj Yadav be released on bail on his executing a personal bond and furnishing two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned in Case Crime No. 282 of 2014, under Sections 363, 366, 376(2)(g) I.P.C. and 3/4 Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, P.S. Manjhanpur, District-Kaushambi subject to the following conditions:-
(a) The applicant will not leave District Deoria, as mentioned above.
(b) The applicant will visit District Kaushambi and Kanpur only to attend the trial.
(c) The applicant shall attend the court according to the conditions of the bond executed by him.
(d) The applicant 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.
It is made clear that if the applicant violates his undertaking, in that event, the learned A.G.A. is at liberty to file a recall application.
Order Date :- 2.2.2018 Digamber
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the applicant should be granted bail despite serious allegations of abduction and sexual assault against a minor.
Raj Yadav
Pradeep Kumar Singh Baghel
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
