Allowed

Arvind Kumar Yadav v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC16 Jul 2021CRLA/215/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a bail appeal under the SC/ST Act concerning offences under the IPC, the Single Judge allowed the appeal, holding that the appellant established a case for bail. The court set aside the lower court's order rejecting bail, noting the accused's clean record and the disputed nature of the relationship.

What did the court decide?

The appellant is released on bail upon furnishing personal bonds and two sureties each of the like amount.

Arvind Kumar Yadav Vs State of U.P. and Another — Caste Atrocities | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 50

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 215 of 2021

¶3

Appellant :- Arvind Kumar Yadav Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Appellant :- Khushboo Kumari,Rajesh Kumar Mishra,Rajesh Kumar Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Arvind Kumar Mishra-I,J.

¶5

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

¶6

This Criminal Appeal under Section 14-A (2) of SC/ST Act as Amended, has been preferred by the appellant with the prayer to set aside the order dated 09.12.2020 passed by Special Judge SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act, Allahabad, in Case Crime No.191 of 2020, under Sections 376, 493, 504, 506 I.P.C. and 3(2)(V) SC/ST Act, P.S. Naini, District Allahabad.

¶7

Contention, in brief, is that the applicant and prosecutrix are major and the prosecutrix entered into physical relationship with the applicant of her own free will. Both agreed to get themselves married and live social life. The statement given by the prosecutrix herself is indicative of fact that no offence has been committed by the applicant and the prosecutrix wanted to marry the applicant, which the applicant also agrees. There is no point of dispute as such. In case the appellant is admitted to bail, there is no possibility of his absconding or misusing the liberty of bail. The appellant has no criminal history and is languishing in jail since 12.03.2020.

¶8

Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of the appellant.

¶9

I have considered the rival submissions so made and having gone through the entire record including the order by which, bail application of the appellant has been rejected, impugned herein this appeal.

¶10

Nothing convincing has been argued on behalf of the complainant/State so as to justify and sustain the order passed by the court below rejecting the bail application of the appellant.

¶11

Thus, in view of the above and having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view the evidence, complicity of accused, I am of the view that the appellant has made out a case for bail.

¶12

Accordingly, this appeal is allowed and the impugned order dated 09.12.2020, rejecting the bail of the appellant is set aside.

¶13

Let the accused-appellant Arvind Kumar Yadav involved in the aforesaid case crime number for the aforesaid offences be released on bail on his furnishing personal bonds and two sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of Court concerned subject to the condition that appellant shall cooperate in the trial and will not jump the bail.

¶14

Order Date :- 16.7.2021 rkg

Arvind Kumar Yadav v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Arvind Kumar 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

Raju Vs State of U.P. and Another

Arun Bhaskar and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Firoz Vs State of U.P.

Saksham Sirauthiya Vs State of U.P. and Another

Sonu @ Shailendra Vs State of U.P.

Ghulam Sadique and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another