Allowed

Rajendra Yadav v. State of U.P. and Anr.

Allahabad HC12 Sept 2018CRLA/1856/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Single Judge in Criminal Appeal No. 1856 of 2018 allowed the bail appeal, setting aside the lower court's rejection of bail for the appellant, Rajendra Yadav, charged with offences under Sections 306 and 376 IPC and the SC/ST (P.A.) Act following the death of a 15-year-old girl.

What did the court decide?

Appellant released on bail with personal bond and two sureties, subject to conditions of cooperating in trial and refraining from unlawful activities.

Rajendra Yadav Vs State of U.P. and Anr. — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 52

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 1856 of 2018

¶3

Appellant :- Rajendra Yadav Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Anr. Counsel for Appellant :- Pramod Kumar Srivastava,Jiya Lal Patel Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Anoop Kumar Pandey

¶4

Hon'ble Rajul Bhargava,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Pramod Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the appellant, Sri Anoop Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the respondent No.2 and the learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶6

This appeal has been filed against judgment and order dated 22.02.2018 passed by learned Special Judge, SC/ST Act/Additional Sessions Judge, Fatehpur passed in Bail Application No. 136 of 2018 (Rajendra Yadav Vs State of U.P.), arising out of Case Crime No. 119 of 2017 (S.S.T. No. 159 of 2017), under Sections 306, 376 I.P.C. and Section 3 (2) (X) Ka, 3 (1) (x) (x)Da, Dha, Ba of SC/ST (P.A.) Act, P.S. Dhata, District- Fatehpur, by which bail plea of appellant has been rejected.

¶7

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 first informant lodged the first information report on 19.08.2017 at about 12:30 A.M. with the allegation that her daughter, who is aged about 15 years, died on 18.08.2017 at about 12:00 Noon. She further alleged that the appellant who is her tenant had established illicit relations with her daughter and for the past two months he could not succeed in his evil design and her daughter was mentally tortured by him, so, her daughter fell ill and died. In the F.I.R. there is no direct allegation of rape on the appellant, however, in the statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. the first informant has alleged that the appellant not only raped her daughter but also sexually assaulted her. It is argued that no reliance can be placed on the subsequent material improvement made by the first informant in her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. Thus, the appellant, who is languishing in jail since 29.09.2017, is entitled to be released on bail. 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.

¶8

Learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for the respondent No.2 have vehemently opposed the aforesaid submissions of learned counsel for the appellant but could not point out anything material to the contrary.

¶9

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

¶10

bail has been made out.

¶11

In the result, appeal is allowed. The judgment and order dated 22.02.2018 passed by learned Special Judge, SC/ST Act/Additional Sessions Judge, Fatehpur is set aside.

¶12

Let appellant-applicant- Rajendra 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 :- 12.9.2018 Vikas/-

Rajendra Yadav v. State of U.P. and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajendra Yadav v. State of U.P. and Anr.

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

Sonu Rajbhar Vs State of U.P.

Pintoo Tiwari Vs State of U.P. and Another

Dhirendra @ Dhiru Singh Vs State of U.P.

Mohd. Faheem Vs State of U.P.

Nawab Vs State of U.P.

Shoeb and Another Vs State of U.P.