Allowed

Rahul Yadav v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC2 Jul 2019BAIL/20275/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court allowed a bail application filed by Rahul Yadav, accused of abduction and sexual offences under IPC, POCSO Act, and SC/ST Act. Rejecting arguments about the victim's actual age and lack of evidence of physical relation, the court found it a fit case for bail without commenting on the merits of the charges.

What did the court decide?

Release of the applicant Rahul Yadav on bail by furnishing a personal bond and two sureties.

Rahul Yadav Vs State of U.P. — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 77

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 20275 of 2019

¶3

Applicant :- Rahul Yadav Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Ashok Kumar Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A

¶4

Hon'ble Umesh Chandra Tripathi,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

¶6

By way of instant bail application, prayer has been made to enlarge the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 442 of 2018, under Sections 363, 366, 376 of I.P.C., Section 3/4 of the POCSO Act and Section 3(2)(v) of the S.C./S.T. (P.A.) Act, Police Station - George Town, District - Allahabad.

¶7

As per prosecution version, on 03.08.2018 at about 09.00 A.M., the applicant abducted the prosecutrix, aged about 13 years.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant contended that the prosecutrix is major. She has gone with the applicant on her own sweet will. There is no evidence on record to show that the applicant and the prosecutrix have made physical relation. Accordingly, no offence is made out against the applicant. The applicant has no criminal antecedent and is languishing in jail since 28.08.2018.

¶9

Per contra, learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail and contended that even as per medical report, the prosecutrix is minor, as her age is above 16 years but below 18 years. However, he admitted this fact that there is no medical evidence on record to show that the applicant has made physical relation with the prosecutrix.

¶10

The prosecutrix in her statement under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. stated that she had gone with the applicant on her own sweet will. As such, the applicant has not committed any offence.

¶11

Without commenting on the merits of the case, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I find it a fit case for enlarging the applicant on bail.

¶12

Let the applicant - Rahul Yadav be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned.

¶13

Application stands allowed .

¶14

Order Date :- 2.7.2019 I. Batabyal

Rahul Yadav v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rahul Yadav v. State of U.P.

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

Prabhat Vs State of U.P.

Naresh Vs State of U.P.

Dheeraj Vs State of U.P. and Another

Sachin Vs State of U.P.

Avtar Singh Chauhan Vs State of U.P.

Subhan Vs State of U.P.