Allowed

Rajendra Kumar Yadav v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC31 Jul 2019BAIL/19464/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court released the applicant on bail in a case involving Sections 363, 376-A, 506 IPC and POCSO, subject to personal bond, local sureties, and conditions requiring presence during evidence and specific court proceedings.

What did the court decide?

Released on bail by furnishing a personal bond and two local sureties, subject to multiple conditions regarding court presence and conduct.

Rajendra Kumar Yadav Vs State of U.P. — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 78

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 19464 of 2018 Applicant :- Rajendra Kumar Yadav Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Radhey Shyam Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶3

Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.

¶4

Pursuant to the order dated 18.07.2019 CMO Fatehpur, Mr. Uma Kant Pandey Chief Medical Officer, is present in the Court and has filed his personal affidavit tendering his apology for the mistake done by him and states that it was not deliberate or intentional. He has also filed the ossification test of the victim, which goes to show that the victim is 18 years old. His personal appearance is exempted. Affidavit of compliance is taken on record.

¶5

Heard Sri Radhey Shyam Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Prashant Kumar, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record of the present bail application.

¶6

The present bail application has been filed by the applicant – Rajendra Kumar Yadav with a prayer to enlarge him on bail in Case Crime No.271 of 2017, under Sections 363, 376-A, 506 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of POCSO Act, Police Station Jahanabad, District Fatehpur.

¶7

It is argued by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case due to ulterior motive. It is next argued that as per allegation in the FIR the victim has left her house along with Rs.22,000/- on 09.11.2017 with the applicant. The applicant was assisted by co-accused Ramakant in enticing away the victim. The victim has been safely recovered and her statements under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. have been recorded. In her statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. she has stated that she left her house along with the applicant and had married the applicant whereas she has given a different version in Section 164 Cr.P.C. Seeing the variations in her statement under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. it appears that under the pressure of her parents such statement has been given against the applicant. As per medical report, the age of the victim is 18 years. It is next contended that the applicant has no criminal history and there is no possibility of fleeing away from the judicial process or tampering with the witnesses and in case, the applicant is enlarged on bail, the applicant shall not misuse the liberty of bail and the applicant is languishing in jail since 29.11.2017. Accordingly, he requests for bail.

¶8

Per contra, learned A.G.A. has opposed the bail prayer of the applicant by contending that the innocence of the applicant cannot be adjudged at pre trial stage, therefore, he does not deserves any indulgence. In case the applicant is released on bail he will again indulge in similar activities and will misuse the liberty of bail.

¶9

Considering the material/evidence brought on record, the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties as well as the dictum of Apex Court in the case of Dataram Singh vs. State of U.P. and another, reported in (2018) 3 SCC 22, let the applicant involved in aforesaid case crime be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two local sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned, subject to the following conditions:-

¶10

(i) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law.

¶11

(ii) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶12

(iii) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued and the applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶13

(iv) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. If in the opinion of the trial court absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law.

¶14

Order Date :- 31.7.2019 Anand Sri./-

Rajendra Kumar Yadav v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajendra Kumar Yadav v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Yogesh Vs State of U.P.

Sarvesh Kumari @ Ram Sakhi Vs State of U.P.

Mujahid and Another Vs State of U.P.and Another

Abid Vs State of U.P.

Mitil Gupta @ Honey Gupta Vs State of U.P.

Rahul Vs State of U.P.