Allowed

Anand @ Anand Yadav v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC5 Jun 2020BAIL/5601/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal bail application, this High Court granted bail to the accused charged under IPC and POCSO Act. The court noted a six-month delay and initial discrepancy regarding rape allegations in the FIR. Bail was granted on heavy sureties with strict conditions prohibiting contact with the victim.

What did the court decide?

Released on bail with personal bond and two heavy sureties subject to strict conditions including no contact with victim.

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

¶1

In Chamber

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 5601 of 2020

¶3

Applicant :- Anand @ Anand Yadav Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Vishvendra Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Indra Deo Mishra,Shri Ram (Rawat)

¶4

Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Vishvendra Singh, learned counsel for the applicant; Sri I.D. Mishra and Sri Shri Ram (Rawat), learned counsel for the informant and learned AGA for the State through video-conference as also perused the material placed on record.

¶6

The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant - Anand @ Anand Yadav with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No. - 1004 of 2019, under Sections - 452, 354-Kha, 376-D I.P.C. & 3/4 POCSO Act, Police Station - Sikandara, District - Agra , during pendency of trial.

¶7

From perusal of the bail application and affidavit filed in support thereof, it appears, at present:

¶8

(i) the applicant is accused of offence under Sections 452, 354-Kha, 376-D I.P.C. & 3/4 POCSO Act;

¶9

(ii) against FIR lodged on 01.12.2019, the applicant is in confinement since 02.12.2019 that is for more than six months;

¶10

(iii) the applicant claims to have cooperated in the investigation. In any case he is not shown to have unduly evaded arrest;

¶11

(iv) as to criminal history, it has been submitted, the applicant has criminal history of two cases, which has been explained;

¶12

(v) chargesheet has already been submitted, however, there is no hope of early conclusion of the trial

¶13

Learned AGA and learned counsel for the informant have vehemently opposed the present bail application relying on the age of the victim being below 18 years as also the fact that the victim had specifically named the applicant in her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. Also, reference has been made to the criminal

¶14

history of the applicant. Thus, it has been submitted that the applicant is not entitled to bail.

¶15

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the record, without drawing any inference as to fact and without suggesting any inference, on prima facie basis, only for purpose of grant of bail, it is seen that though the incident is said to have been witnessed by an independent eye-witness Pushpendra and the FIR came to be lodged thereafter, there was no allegation of rape made in the FIR and further there was no allegation of rape made in original and the subsequent statement of the victim recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. The allegation of rape appears thereafter in the statement of the victim recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. Also, such allegation of rape is not there against the present applicant in the statement of the independent eye-witness Pushpendra. In view of the facts noted above, the applicant is found entitled to bail at this stage though on heavy surety with a further stipulation that the applicant will not make any contact with the victim or family members of the victim.

¶16

In any case, no reasonable apprehension has been brought to the fore by the State and or the informant that the applicant, if enlarged on bail would either tamper with the evidence or delay the trial.

¶17

This Court in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 11973 of 2020 (Vijay Pratap Verma Vs. State of U.P.) has, while enlarging the applicant (in that case) on bail vide order dated 09.04.2020, imposed certain conditions. I am in respectful agreement with the said order and propose to follow the same.

¶18

In view of the above, without expressing any opinion on the final merits of the case, let the applicant - Anand @ Anand Yadav involved in the aforesaid case crime be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two heavy sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions which are being imposed in the interest of justice:-

¶19

(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

¶20

in accordance with law.

¶21

(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.

¶22

(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.

¶23

(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.

¶24

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

¶25

(vi) The computer generated copy of such order shall be self attested by the counsel of the party concerned.

¶26

(vii) 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.

¶27

In view of the extraordinary situation prevailing in the State due to Covid-19, the directions of this Court dated 06.04.2020 passed in Public Interest Litigation No. 564 of 2020 (In re vs. State of U.P.) shall also be complied. The order reads thus:

¶28

" Looking to impediments in arranging sureties because of lockdown, while invoking powers under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, we deem it appropriate to order that all the accused-applicants whose bail applications came to be allowed on or after 15th March, 2020 but have not been released due to nonavailability of sureties as a consequence to lockdown may be released on executing personal bond as ordered by the Court or to

¶29

the satisfaction of the jail authorities where such accused is imprisoned, provided the accused-applicants undertakes to furnish required sureties within a period of one month from the date of his/her actual release. "

¶30

It is made clear that, in the event of violation of any terms and conditions of the bail order or in the event of any attempt being made by the applicant to intimidate the witness or to tamper the evidence or to even make contact with her either personally or through his agent or through electronic means or telephonic means or by any other means, it may result in immediate cancellation of bail being granted to the applicant, the informant shall be at liberty to file a bail cancellation application supported by the relevant material. That application if filed, may be taken up on priority.

¶31

However, it is expected that the learned court below shall make all efforts to conclude the trial as expeditiously as possible, without allowing for any undue or long adjournment to either party, keeping in mind the principle contained in Section 309 Cr.P.C.

¶32

Order Date :- 5.6.2020 Abhilash

Anand @ Anand Yadav v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anand @ Anand Yadav 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

Lalita Devi Vs State of U.P.

Mangal Singh Vs State of U.P.

Smt Meeta Gupta Vs State of U.P.

Julfkkar Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ajai @ Pakodi Vs State of U.P.

Ravi @ Ashutosh Vs State of U.P.