Allowed

Mulayam Yadav @ Vijay Bahadur v. State of U.P. and Anr.

Allahabad HC18 Dec 2018CRLA/3807/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the criminal appeal preferred against the order rejecting the bail application. The Court observed inconsistencies in the prosecution witness statement, noting that one statement implicated the appellant in rape while another did not, resulting in only detention charges. Consequently, the Court quashed the earlier order and granted bail with a personal bond and sureties.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order was quashed and the appellant was released on bail on furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 1 lakh and two sureties in equal amount.

Mulayam Yadav @ Vijay Bahadur Vs… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 14

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 3807 of 2018

¶3

Appellant :- Mulayam Yadav @ Vijay Bahadur Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Anr. Counsel for Appellant :- Pranesh Kumar Mishra,Anurag Agrahari Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Ifaqat Ali Khan,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Pranesh Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the appellant and learned AGA for the State.

¶6

This appeal is preferred against the order dated 7.6.2018 passed by Special Judge SC/ST Act, Allahabad in Bail Application No. 2146 of 2018 (Mulayam Yadav @ Vijay Bahadur Vs. State) arising out of Case crime No. 0051 of 2018 under section 376-D, 342, 506, 34 IPC and 3(2)(5) SC/ST Act, police station Bahariya, district Allahabad by which the bail application of the appellant has been rejected.

¶7

In nutshell the prosecution case is that complainant Nand Lal Pasi lodged FIR on 8.3.2018 with these allegations that on 8.3.2018 at 8 pm Raj Bahadur and Mulayam Yadav came to his house and took his 20 years old married daughter Saroja Devi away to the pond and both the accused committed rape on her.

¶8

Counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant has been falsely implicated in this case whereas learned AGA has opposed the bail application.

¶9

In the FIR itself it is mentioned that rape is committed by both the accused. In her statement under section 161 Cr.P.C. she has stated that Jamme and Mulayam Yadav committed rape on her, but after few lines in her statement the prosecutirx has said that only Jamme committee rape on her. Mulayam Yadav only silenced her sister. Only Raj Bahadur took her to the pond. Mulayam Yadav silenced her sister infront of her house. Meaning thereby at the open place.

¶10

In her statement under section 164 Cr.P.C. prosecutirx has stated that Jamme pressed his mouth and took her to pond and committed rape on her. Mulayam Yadav only detained her sister on her home. In the statement under section 164 Cr.P.C. prosecutirx has not levelled any allegation of rape against accused Mulayam Yadav.

¶11

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I find it a fit case for granting bail. The appeal deserves to be allowed, hence the appeal is allowed and the 7.6.2018 passed by Special Judge SC/ST Act, Allahabad in Bail Application No. 2146 of 2018 (Mulayam Yadav @ Vijay Bahadur Vs. State) arising out of Case crime No. 0051 of 2018 under section 376-D, 342, 506, 34 IPC and 3(2)(5) SC/ST Act, police station Bahariya, district Allahabad is quashed.

¶12

Let the appellant Mulayam Yadav @ Vijay Bahadur involved in Case crime No. 0051 of 2018 under section 376-D, 342, 506, 34 IPC and 3(2)(5) SC/ST Act, police station Bahariya, district Allahabad be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond of rupees one lakh

¶13

and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions.

¶14

The appellant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence and will not seek adjournment if the witnesses are present in court.

¶15

The appellant shall not pressurize the prosecution witnesses. 3. The appellant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed either personally or through his counsel on the date fixed for framing of charge and recording of the statement under section 313 Cr.P.C.. Appellant shall remain personally present in the court. In case of his absence without sufficient cause the trial court may proceed against him under section 229-A of IPC.

¶16

In case of default of any of the conditions enumerated above, the order granting bail shall automatically stand cancelled. Order Date :- 18.12.2018 SKS

Mulayam Yadav @ Vijay Bahadur v. State of U.P. and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mulayam Yadav @ Vijay Bahadur 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

Trapti and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Smt. Neetu Shahi and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Abhishek Sharma Vs State of U.P. and Another

Iquramul Hak and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Chatr Singh and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Avnish Kumar Kaushik Vs State of U.P. and Another