Allowed

Saurabh Yadav v. State of U.P. and Ors.

Allahabad HC2 Jun 2022/12281/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Court allowed the bail application of Saurabh Yadav, accused in offences under IPC and POCSO, SATPA involving allegations of misbehaviour and non-consensual physical relations, upholding the defense of a love affair and lack of prior criminal history. The applicant was released on personal and surety bonds with standard conditions to prevent tampering and ensure trial attendance.

What did the court decide?

The applicant to be released on bail upon furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties of like amount subject to conditions of not committing offence, tampering evidence and ensuring trial att

Saurabh Yadav Vs State of U.P. and Ors. — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 16 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 12281 of 2021 Applicant :- Saurabh Yadav Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Ors. Counsel for Applicant :- Ramakar Shukla Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶2

Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,J.

¶3

Heard Sri Ramakar Shukla, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Ajai Kumar, learned A.G.A. for the State respondent.

¶4

By means of the order dated 28.10.2021 passed in this case notice was ordered to be issued to the opposite party no.2. The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sultanpur has sent a report dated 15.11.2021 that notice of the application has been served upon the opposite party no. 2 personally. However, no one has put it appearance on behalf of opposite party no. 2 & on 08.04.2022, this Court had passed an order that if no one puts in appearance on behalf of the opposite party no. 2 on the next date, the bail application may be heard and decided on the basis of material available on record and the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties.

¶5

When the case has been taken up today, no one has put in appearance on behalf of the opposite party no. 2.

¶6

Accordingly, in furtherance of the order dated 08.04.2022 this Court proceeds to decide the application on the basis of the material available on record.

¶7

The present bail application has been filed by the applicant, who is in custody in respect of Case Crime No. 271 of 2021, under Sections 376, 354, 452, 504, 506 IPC and Section 3/4 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act & Section 3(2)(V) of Scheduled Caste/ Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Police Station- Jaisinghpur, District- Sultanpur with the prayer to enlarge him on bail.

¶8

On 10.07.2021, the informant, Smt. Rajeshwari Kori has lodged an F.I.R. at 11:21 am in Police Station- Jaisinghpur, DistrictSultanpur, under Sections 354, 504, 506 IPC and Section 3(1) (k), 3(1)(r)(s) of Scheduled Caste/ Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and Section 7/8 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, alleging that on 09.07.2021 at about 7:00 pm when her daughter was returning to her house from the passage in the villlage, the applicant started misbehaving with her. When the informant's son Ankit reached there, the applicant

¶9

went away while abusing and threatening the son and the daughter of the informant. During investigation, statement of the informant was recorded on 12.07.2021 wherein she reiterated the version given in the F.I.R. In the statement of victim recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. on 16.07.2021 also, the F.I.R. version only was reiterated. However, in the statement of the victim recorded on 24.07.2021 under Section 164 Cr.P.C., apart from reiterating the allegations leveled in the F.I.R. regarding the incident dated 09.07.2021, she further alleged that the applicant had entered her house on 29.05.2021; at that time her younger brother and sister only were there in her house and the applicant made "physical relations" with the victim and he said that in case she shouted, he would tell everyone that she had called her and therefore, she did not tell anyone about this incident. The alleged victim further stated in her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. that on 30.05.2021, the applicant made a phone call to the victim and had asked her that she should not tell anyone about the incident. Thereafter, she talked to the applicant for 2-3 days and then she returned the mobile phone to her aunt to whom it belonged and thereafter, she did not talk to the applicant. The victim as also the informant, who is the mother of the victim, denied consent for a medical examination of the victim for ascertainment of her age.

¶10

Submission of the learned counsel for the applicant is that the F.I.R. of the incident alleged to have taken place on 09.07.2021 was lodged on 10.07.2021. In the F.I.R. as well as in the statements of informant and the victim recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., there is no allegation of rape. It was for the first time that the victim in her statement recorded on 24.07.2021 under Section 164 Cr.P.C. made an allegation that on 29.05.2021, the applicant had made "physical relations" with her and in this statement also she did not use any words to indicate commission of rape.

¶11

Further submission of the learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant and the victim are residents of the same village and they were having a love affair and when this fact came to the knowledge of family members of the victim they initially lodged a false F.I.R. against the applicant and later on they pressurized the victim to include further false allegations in her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. To fortify this statement, a photograph of the applicant along with the victim has been filed along with the affidavit filed in support of the application which depicts affinity between the applicant and the alleged victim. This statement is also fortified from the statement of victim recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. wherein she stated that even after the alleged incident she continued to talk to the applicant on phone for 2-3 days. It has been

¶12

specifically stated the applicant has no previous criminal history.

¶13

It is next submitted that there is no chance of the applicant's absconding or tampering with the prosecution evidence. The applicant has given an undertaking that he will not misuse the liberty of bail in case he is enlarged on bail. The applicant is languishing in jail since 03.08.2021.

¶14

The learned A.G.A., on the basis of instructions, opposed the prayer for grant of bail to the applicant. However, he could not dispute the aforesaid aspects of the case.

¶15

Keeping in view of the aforesaid facts, this Court is satisfied that the applicant has made out a case for being enlarged on bail pending conclusion of trial.

¶16

Let the applicant- Saurabh Yadav be released on bail in the aforesaid Case Crime Number on his furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions:-

¶17

(1) The applicant shall attend the proceedings of the case in accordance with the conditions of the bonds to be executed by him.

¶18

(2) The applicant shall not commit any offence.

¶19

(3) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶20

(4) The applicant will fully cooperate in expeditious disposal of the case and shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when witnesses are present in the Court.

¶21

(5) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (a) opening of the case, (b) framing of charge; and (c) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C.

¶22

Any violation of above conditions will be treated misuse of bail and learned court below will be at liberty to pass appropriate order in the matter regarding cancellation of bail.

¶23

Order Date :- 2.6.2022/Aditya

¶24

Digitally signed by ADITYA KUSHWAHA Date: 2022.06.03 17:47:05 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Saurabh Yadav v. State of U.P. and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Saurabh Yadav v. State of U.P. and Ors.

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

Ashwani and Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home and Another

Smt. Poonam Thru. Her Husband Avdesh Vs Rati Ram and 2 Others

Akeel Alias Akeel Khan and Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home, Lko. and Another

Om Prakash Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Kuldeep Pandey Vs State of U.P.

Ritik Yadav Vs State of Up Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Secrtt. Lko and 3 Others