Allowed

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

Allahabad HC26 Jul 2021CRLA/1858/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal Appeal against bail rejection in a rape case involving IPC 376 and SC/ST Act. High Court found illegality in the lower court's order, set aside the rejection, and granted bail on personal and surety bonds with standard conditions.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 25.11.2020 set aside. Appellant released on bail by furnishing personal bond and two sureties. Conditions: co-operate with trial, no tampering, no unlawful activities.

Ajay Yadav Vs State of U.P. and Another — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 74

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 1858 of 2021

¶3

Appellant :- Ajay Yadav Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Appellant :- Ramesh Chandra Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Pradeep Kumar Srivastava,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned AGA for the State and perused the record.

¶6

Learned A.G.A. has filed counter affidavit, which is taken on record.

¶7

None is present for the respondent no.2.

¶8

This appeal has been filed by appellant Ajay Yadav against the impugned order dated 25.11.2020 passed by learned Special Judge, Exclusive Special Court (SC/ST Act), Gorakhpur in Bail Application No. 3408 of 2020(Ajay Yadav vs. State of U.P.), arising out of Case Crime No. 884 of 2020, under Sections 376, 504, 506 I.P.C. and Section 3(2)(V) of SC/ST Act, P.S. Pepeeganj, District-Gorakhpur by which bail plea of appellant has been rejected. Aggrieved by the rejection order this appeal has been filed.

¶9

Submission of learned counsel for the appellant is that as per medical report, the age of the victim is about 25 years and she is major. It has been further submitted that the FIR was lodged with the allegation that on relevant date and time the appellant attempted sexual abused on her and she any how escaped and reached her house. Further submission is that in the statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. similar kind of statements was given by the victim to the I.O. but when she was examined under Section 164 Cr.P.C. she in a afterthought way started saying that rape was committed by the appellant. The record shows that during the medical, she stated that she had friendship with the appellant from the last three months and her mother saw both were intimate condition. It has also been submitted that if at all anything happened with the victim, it was a consented act and no case of rape is made out against the appellant. The learned Special Judge has clearly ignored this aspect of the case and has illegally rejected the bail application. Further submission is that appellant has no criminal history and there is also no possibility of his either fleeing away from the judicial process or tampering with the witnesses.

¶10

Learned AGA has vehemently opposed the prayer and submitted that the rape has been committed on a girl of scheduled caste community and the appellant does not deserve any sympathy. The learned Special Judge has considered all the aspects of the matter and has rightly rejected the bail application. Further submission is that charge-sheet has already been filed by the police after investigation.

¶11

Considered the submission of both sides.

¶12

It is clear that in the FIR there is no disclosure of the fact of rape being committed by the appellant on the victim and considering the fact that both the accused and victim had friendly relationship and on the said date the mother of the victim saw them and this may authorize to the first information report. Even when she was examined under Section 164 Cr.P.C. her version with regard to rape appears to have come as an afterthought. As such, I find illegality in the impugned order and the same is liable to be set aside.

¶13

In the result, appeal is allowed . Impugned order dated 25.11.2020 passed by learned Special Judge, Exclusive Special Court (SC/ST Act), Gorakhpur is set aside.

¶14

Let appellant-applicant Ajay Yadav be released on bail in Bail Application No. 3408 of 2020(Ajay Yadav vs. State of U.P.), arising out of Case Crime No. 884 of 2020, under Sections 376, 504, 506 I.P.C. and Section 3(2)(V) of SC/ST Act, P.S. Pepeeganj, District-Gorakhpur on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of magistrate/court concerned, subject to following conditions:-

¶15

(i) The applicant-appellant will co-operate with the trial and remain present personally on each and every date fixed for framing of charge, recording of evidence as well as recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. or through counsel on other dates and in case of absence without sufficient cause, it will be deemed that he is abusing the liberty of bail enabling the court concerned to take necessary action in accordance with the provisions of Section 82 Cr.P.C. or Sections 174A and 229A I.P.C.

¶16

(ii) The applicant-appellant will not tamper with the prosecution evidence and will not delay the disposal of trial in any manner whatsoever.

¶17

(iii) The applicant-appellant will not indulge in any unlawful activities.

¶18

The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be verified by court concerned and in case of breach of any of the conditions mentioned above, court concerned will be at liberty to cancel the bail and send the applicant to prison.

¶19

Order Date :- 26.7.2021 Mini

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ajay 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ayyub and 19 Others Vs State of U.P.

Mujphphar Vs State of U.P. and Another

Mahendra Singh and 5 Other Vs State of U.P. and 2 Other

Hamja and Another Vs State of U.P.

Mithilesh Tiwari and 2 Others Vs State of U.P.

Sunil Kumar @ Sunil Vs State of U.P.