Allowed the bail application of the applicant, who was charged with offences under IPC and POCSO Act. The court granted bail subject to stringent conditions explaining his appearance and failure to violate anti-surrender conditions.
Applicant released on personal bond and sureties subject to conditions regarding absence, attendance, and conclusion of trial.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 67
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 8316 of 2021 Applicant :- Sonu Yadav Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Anil Kumar Mishra,Om Prakash Pathak
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Manjeet Kumar,Pramod Kumar Maurya
Hon'ble Rahul Chaturvedi,J.
Heard Shri Anil Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant, Shri Pramod Kumar Maurya, learned counsel for the complainant and learned A.G.A. Perused the record.
By means of the present bail application the applicant, who is facing prosecution in connection with Case Crime No.247 of 2020, u/s 363, 366, 376 I.P.C. and Section ¾ of POCSO Act and Section 3(2)(V) of SC/ST Act, 1989 (Amendment 2015), P.S.Jhunsi, District-Prayagraj, is seeking his enlargement on bail during trial. The applicant is in jail since 12.8.2020.
Submission of learned counsel for the applicant is that the present FIR was got lodged by Smt. Geeta Devi against the applicant Sonu Yadav and three others with the allegation that the informant belongs to scheduled caste community and on 12.5.2020 her minor daughter (14 years) was enticed away by the applicant and his other associates. Initially the F.I.R. was registered u/s 363, 366 I.P.C., Section 7/8 POCSO Act and Section 3(2)(va) of SC/ST Act but the police after investigation has added Section 376 I.P.C. It is further contended by learned counsel for the applicant that after the recovery of the victim, her statements u/s 161 and 164 were recorded. In her statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C. the victim has completely blasted the prosecution case by mentioning therein that she was in affair with the applicant since March, 2020. The victim further states that on 12.5.2020 she herself has joined the company of applicant and performed marriage in a temple and she considers the applicant as her husband. On the same lines, the victim has given her statement recorded u/s 164 Cr.P.C. As per radiological report the age of the girl is 18-20 years.
Learned counsel for the complainant and learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail, by making a mention that the applicant has got criminal antecedents of 8 cases.
On this, learned counsel for the applicant submitted that all 8 cases against the applicant have been duly explained and they
are trivial in nature.
Taking into account that the victim is a major girl and in her statement she has indicated that she got married with the applicant and wants to remain in the company of applicant, and nature of the offence, evidence on record regarding complicity of the accused and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed.
Let the applicant Sonu Yadav , who is involved in aforementioned case crime be released on bail on his 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.
(i) THE APPLICANT SHALL FILE AN UNDERTAKING TO THE EFFECT THAT HE SHALL NOT SEEK ANY ADJOURNMENT ON THE DATE 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.
(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 IPC.
(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., MAY BE ISSUED AND IF 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 IPC.
(iv) THE APPLICANT SHALL REMAIN PRESENT, IN PERSON, BEFORE THE TRIAL COURT ON DATES FIXED FOR (1) OPENING OF THE CASE, (2) FRAMING OF CHARGE AND (3) 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.
(v) THE TRIAL COURT MAY MAKE ALL POSSIBLE EFFORTS/ENDEAVOUR AND TRY TO CONCLUDE THE TRIAL WITHIN A PERIOD OF ONE YEAR AFTER THE RELEASE OF THE APPLICANT.
In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.
It is made clear that observations made in granting bail to the applicant shall not in any way affect the learned trial Judge in forming his independent opinion based on the testimony of the witnesses.
Since the bail application has been decided under extra-ordinary circumstances, thus in the interest of justice following additional conditions are being imposed just to facilitate the applicant to be released on bail forthwith. Needless to mention that these additional conditions are imposed to cope with emergent condition-:
1. The applicant 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.
2. The party shall file computer generated copy of such order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad.
3. The computer generated copy of such order shall be self attested by the counsel of the party concerned.
4. 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.
However, it is made clear that any wilful violation of above conditions by the applicant, shall have serious repercussion on his/her bail so granted by this Court and the trial court is at liberty to cancel the bail, after recording the reasons for doing so, in the given case of any of the condition mentioned above.
Order Date :- 6.7.2021 M. Kumar
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the applicant is entitled to be released on bail during trial.
Whether the nature of the offence and statements made by the victim are sufficient grounds for granting bail.
3 provisions across 2 enactments
Sonu Yadav
Rahul Chaturvedi
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
