Allowed

Mahatam Yadav v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC9 Dec 2020BAIL/32467/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court granted bail to the applicant in a criminal case involving offences under Sections 376D, 354-B, IPC, noting discrepancies between the applicant and co-accused in victim statements despite the serious nature of the charges.

What did the court decide?

The applicant was released on bail by furnishing a personal bond and two local sureties subject to specific conditions regarding presence and conduct during trial.

Mahatam Yadav Vs State of U.P. — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2020)

¶1

Court No. - 36

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 32467 of 2020

¶3

Applicant :- Mahatam Yadav Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- R.B.Pal Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Ali Zamin,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material on record.

¶6

The present bail application has been filed by the applicant with a prayer to enlarge him on bail in Case Crime No. 101 of 2020, under Section 376D, 354-B, 323, 504, 506 IPC, P.S. Gauri Bazar, District Deoria.

¶7

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that according to FIR, on 07.05.2020 at 12.00 noon applicant and two others pushing down the victim on the earth applicant torn her clothes and did fingering on his private part. He further submits that in statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. the victim has not disclosed the name of Sant Lal while in her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. the victim has disclosed the name of the applicant and co-accused Anuj and as per statement of the mother of the victim, Anuj was not present at the time of incident. He also submits that the victim was major aged about 20 years. He next submits that the victim and applicant had love affair when parents noticed about their love affair then this case has been lodged. He further submits that the radiological age of the victim has been ascertained about 18 years. He also submits that there is no possibility of the applicant 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 14.05.2020.

¶8

Per contra, learned A.G.A. has opposed the bail prayer of the applicant and submits that victim has specifically stated that applicant did fingering on her private part although in statement under Sections 161 & 164 Cr.P.C. victim has not disclosed the name of the co-accused Anuj, Sant Lal Yadav and mother of the victim has also stated that Anuj was not involved in committing the offence.

¶9

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case,

¶10

submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties, in FIR apart from applicant two other persons were named but in statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. victim has not disclosed the name of Sant Lal and as per statement of the mother of the victim Anuj was also not involved in the case and also perusing the material on record, without expressing any opinion on merit of the case, the applicant is entitled for bail, let the applicant- Mahatam Yadav 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 :-

¶11

(i) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he will not tamper with the evidence and will not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witnesses and will cooperate with the trial. The applicant 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.

¶12

(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.

¶13

(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.

¶14

(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.

¶15

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

¶16

The concerned Court/Authority/Official shall verify the

¶17

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

¶18

Order Date :- 9.12.2020 MAA/-

Mahatam Yadav v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mahatam 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

Smt. Guddi Devi Vs State of U.P.

Sikandar Vs State of U.P. and Another

Nikhil Vs State of U.P. and Another

Shudhir Yadav Vs State of U.P. and Another

Maqsood Ali @ Bhayyan Kunjada Vs State of U.P.and Another

Pappu @ Karan Vs State of U.P.