Dismissed

Rajesh Yadav v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC10 Aug 2021ABAIL/12673/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court rejected the anticipatory bail application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. filed by Rajesh Yadav in a POCSO case. The court held that POCSO offences are serious, the minor victim was not recovered, and no extraordinary circumstances or real threat of arrest were shown.

What did the court decide?

Application for anticipatory bail rejected; direction given to dispose regular bail application expeditiously upon surrender.

Rajesh Yadav Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 74

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 12673 of 2021

¶3

Applicant :- Rajesh Yadav Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Arvind Singh,Krishna Murari Tripathi

¶4

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Pradeep Kumar Srivastava,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA for the State and perused the record.

¶7

This anticipatory bail application has been filed by the applicant Rajesh Yadav in Case Crime No. 0305 of 2020, under sections 363, 366, 120B I.P.C. and section 4 of POCSO Act, P.S.Basrehar, District - Etawah.

¶8

Submission of the learned counsel for the applicant is that the F.I.R. has been lodged with the allegation that Ram Niwas @ Titu in pursuance of the conspiracy committed by the applicant enticed away the minor daughter of the informant. Submission of the learned counsel for the applicant is that applicant is the uncle of the main accused Ram Niwas, he has been falsely implicated on account of enmity. Further submission is that the role which has been assigned to the applicant is of conspiracy, as such, it is a fit case of anticipatory bail. It is further submitted that applicant has no criminal history and applicant is prepared to furnish sureties and bonds, there is no possibility of her either fleeing away from the judicial process or tampering with the evidence.

¶9

Learned AGA has vehemently opposed the prayed of bail and has submitted that still the minor daughter of the informant has not been recovered. The investigation is continuing, therefore, since the case also involves an accusation under the POCSO Act, the applicant is not entitled for anticipatory bail, he may seek regular bail before the appropriate forum.

¶10

Considering the submissions of both the sides, the offence in the case also pertains to an offence under POCSO Act, as such the offence becomes serious. It become more serious case due to the fact that the minor daughter of the informant has not as yet been recovered. Moreover, the forum of regular bail is open to the applicant. It is pertinent to mention that the anticipatory bail is not a substitute of a regular bail and for it, some

¶11

extraordinary circumstances are required in comparison to regular bail. There should be some special reason for taking recourse of the provisions of anticipatory bail. There must also be a threat of arrest of the accused. The applicant has not been able to show any real threat of arrest or any extraordinary circumstances. The F.I.R. has been lodged on 25.12.2020 and about 8 months have already been passed and there is nothing on record to show that police has made any serious effort to arrest the applicant. The POCSO Act has been enacted for prevention of sexual abuse of the children, therefore, if in such cases anticipatory bail applicant is allowed the purpose of this Act will certainly frustrate, hence, I do not find any ground for giving benefit of anticipatory bail, hence the anticipatory bail application filed by the applicant is rejected.

¶12

A direction is however given to the court below that in case applicant surrender and give bail application, the same shall be disposed of expeditiously and preferably on the same day, considering the old age and ailment of the applicant, in accordance with law.

¶13

Order Date :- 10.8.2021 Bhanu

Rajesh Yadav v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajesh Yadav v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

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

Mohd. Waseem and 6 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ranveer Singh Yadav @ Rangvir Kumar Vs State of Up and Another

Nandan @ Nandram Vs State of Up and Another

Ram Ajor Yadav Vs State of U.P.

Muzaffar Khan and 2 Others Vs State of U.P.

Shyam Bihari Vs State of U.P.