Allowed

Jaiveer Yadav v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC4 Sept 2018CRLA/1578/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Special Judge refused bail to the appellant in a POCSO case. The High Court found that the victim did not allege rape in her statement and the appellant had no criminal history. The court held that a bail case was made out considering the unlikelihood of a near-future trial conclusion.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order rejecting bail was set aside; the appellant was released on bail on personal bond and two sureties subject to conditions of appearing in court and not tampering with evidence.

Jaiveer Yadav Vs State of U.P. and Another — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 52

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 1578 of 2018

¶3

Appellant :- Jaiveer Yadav Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Appellant :- Anand Pati Tiwari Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Dhananjay Singh Yadav,Sanjay Sharma

¶4

Hon'ble Rajul Bhargava,J.

¶5

As indicated in the counter affidavit filed by the learned A.G.A., notice has been served personally on respondent No.02, yet no one has appeared on his behalf to oppose the bail prayer in the instant appeal.

¶6

Heard Sri Anand Pati Tiwari, learned counsel for the appellant and the learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶7

This appeal has been filed against judgment and order dated 09.03.2018 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge (POCSO Act), District- Auraiya passed in Bail Application No. 228 of 2018 (Jaiveer Yadav Vs State of U.P.), arising out of Case Crime No. 5 of 2018, under Sections 363, 366, 376 I.P.C., 3/4 of POCSO Act and Section 3(2(V) of SC/ST Act, P.S. Bidhuna, District- Auraiya, by which bail plea of appellant has been rejected.

¶8

Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that order of the learned court below rejecting bail application of applicant-appellant is bad in law. It is submitted that the appellant has been falsely implicated in the present case. The victim, as per the medical report, is aged about 16-18 years. In her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., the victim has stated that on 05.01.2018 when she woke up to attend the call of nature, the appellant who was hiding in her house caught hold of her then he took her to Kannauj and Kisni where they stayed for about eight days. It is argued that there is no allegation of rape in her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. Learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that learned court below has also failed to consider that appellant has no criminal history and there is also no possibility of his either fleeing away from the judicial process or tampering with the witnesses. Thus, the appellant, who is languishing in jail since 02.02.2018, is entitled to be released on bail.

¶9

Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the aforesaid submissions of learned counsel for the appellant but could not dispute that in the statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., the victim has not levelled any allegation of rape against the appellant.

¶10

Having heard the submission of learned counsel of both sides, considering the facts and circumstances of the case and nature of accusation against appellant and evidence in support of it and unlikelihood of conclusion of trial in near future, I find that a case for bail has been made out.

¶11

In the result, appeal is allowed. The judgment and order dated 09.03.2018 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge (POCSO Act), District- Auraiya is set aside.

¶12

Let appellant-applicant- Jaiveer Yadav, be released on bail in aforesaid case on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of magistrate/court concerned, subject to following conditions:-

¶13

(i) The applicant-appellant will co-operate with the trial and remain present personally on each and every date fixed for framing of charge, recording of evidence as well as recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. or through counsel on other dates and in case of absence without sufficient cause, it will be deemed that he is abusing the liberty of bail enabling the court concerned to take necessary action in accordance with the provisions of Section 82 Cr.P.C. or Sections 174A and 229A I.P.C.

¶14

(ii) The applicant-appellant will not tamper with the prosecution evidence and will not delay the disposal of trial in any manner whatsoever.

¶15

(iii) The applicant-appellant will not indulge in any unlawful activities.

¶16

The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be verified by court concerned and in case of breach of any of the conditions mentioned above, court concerned will be at liberty to cancel the bail and send the applicant to prison.

¶17

Order Date :- 4.9.2018 Vikas/-

Jaiveer Yadav v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jaiveer Yadav v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Amit Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Sanjay Mishra Vs State of U.P.

Rahul Chauhan Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Mohd. Zubair Vs State of U.P.

Nashik Vs State of U.P. and Another

Naresh Sahani Vs State of U.P. and Anr.