Allowed

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

Allahabad HC22 Jul 2020BAIL/10128/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Court allowed bail in a criminal case involving Section 376 IPC and POCSO Act. The court cited larger constitutional mandate and Apex Court dictum without assessing merits, finding a case for bail despite vehement opposition by the AGA and informant.

What did the court decide?

Applicants released on bail subject to personal bond, two sureties each, and seven special conditions including trial conclusion within two years.

Mukesh Yadav and Another Vs State of U.P… — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Allahabad HC (2020)

¶1

Court No. - 76 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 10128 of 2020 Applicant :- Mukesh Yadav And Another Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Kamal Singh Yadav,Satish Trivedi (Senior Adv.),Sheshadri Trivedi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Imran Ullah

¶2

Hon'ble Siddharth,J.

¶3

In view of the guidelines laid down by this Court, the urgent bail applications have been directed to be heard through Video Conferencing.

¶4

Heard Sri Kamal Singh Yadav, Sri Satish Trivedi (Senior Adv.) and Sri Sheshadri Trivedi, counsels for the applicant and Sri Imran Ullah, learned counsel for the informant and learned A.G.A through Video Conferencing.

¶5

The allegations in the FIR were against one, Manoj. The applicants were not named in the FIR nor in the statement of the victim under Section 164 Cr.P.C. She has admitted in her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C that she married one, Pramod and eloped with him. However during the trial she has named the applicants as accused in this case and they have been assigned the role of gang rape on the victim. Counsel for the applicant has submitted that it is a case of false implication on account of election rivalry. At no stage of investigation the victim had named the applicants. The applicants are in jail since 15.02.2020 and they are facing trial after being summoned under Section 319 Cr.P.C.

¶6

Counsel for the informant Sri Imran Ullah has vehemently opposed the bail application along with learned A.G.A. He has submitted that the Investigating Officer, Rita Yadav, was instrumental in protecting the applicants during investigation and she had threatened the victim not to name the applicants and therefore they were saved. The applicants have been assigned specific role in the alleged offence by the victim in her statement before the court. The trial is proceeding and the statement of the victim has already been recorded.

¶7

Keeping in view the nature of the offence, argument advanced on behalf of the parties, evidence on record regarding complicity of the accused, larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India and the dictum of Apex Court in the case of Dataram Singh Vs. State of U.P. and another reported in (2018) 3 SCC 22 and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court is of the view that the applicants have made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed.

¶8

Let the applicants- Mukesh Yadav and Dhananjay Yadav @ Dinesh Yadav , in Special Session Trial No. 126 of 2016 in Case Crime No. 203 of 2016, under Sections- 363, 366, 376, 504, 506 IPC and Section 3/4 of POCSO Act, Police StationCholapur, District- Varanasi, be released on bail on their furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions. Further, before issuing the release order, the sureties be verified.

¶9

The applicants shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence by intimidating/ pressurizing the witnesses, during the investigation or trial.

¶10

The applicants shall cooperate in the trial sincerely without seeking any adjournment.

¶11

The applicants shall not indulge in any criminal activity or commission of any crime after being released on bail.

¶12

In case the applicant have been enlarged on short term bail as per the order of committee constituted under the orders of Hon'ble Supreme Court their bail shall be effective after the period of short term bail comes to an end.

¶13

The applicants shall be enlarged on bail on execution of personal bond without sureties till normal functioning of the courts is restored. The accused will furnish sureties to the satisfaction of the court below within a month after normal functioning of the courts are restored.

¶14

The party shall file computer generated copy of such order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad.

¶15

The concerned Court/Authority/Official shall verify the authenticity of such computerized copy of the order from the official website of High Court Allahabad and shall make a declaration of such verification in writing.

¶16

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.

¶17

Trial court will make all efforts to conclude the trial against the applicant within a period of two years.

¶18

Order Date :- 22.7.2020 Rohit

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mukesh Yadav and Another 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mukesh Vs State of U.P.

Vijay Verma @ Natu Vs State of U.P. and Another

Irshad Vs State of U.P.

Hasmuddin @ Hasmukh Vs State of U.P.

Dilawar Vs State of U.P.

Pradeep Sharma Vs State of U.P.