Allowed

Satyam Yadav S/O Moti Lal v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home and 3 Others

Allahabad HC14 Dec 2022/4251/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court allowed a criminal bail application. After the prosecutrix stated in court she was no longer willing to marry the accused-applicant, despite earlier allegations of elopement and sexual abuse under threat, the court found the applicant entitled to bail.

What did the court decide?

Accused-applicant released on bail under IPC and POCSO sections on personal bond and sureties with conditions regarding attendance and no adjournments.

Satyam Yadav S/O Moti Lal Vs State… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 10

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 4251 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Satyam Yadav S/O Moti Lal Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home And 3 Others

¶4

Counsel for Applicant :- Yugal Kishor Tripathi,Ankur Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar Singh,J.

¶6

In compliance of the order dated 29th November 2022 the prosecutrix has been brought to the court by Sub Inspector Sri Ramnarayan Yadav and constable Ms Saumya Yadav.

¶7

Presence of the prosecutrix was required to ascertain as to whether she was ready to marry the accused-applicant as in her statement recorded under section 161 CrPC she has said that she had gone with the accused-applicant out of her choice to Surat, where she stayed with him for 11-12 days as husband and wife. In this statement she has further said that she treat the accused-applicant as her husband and would like to live with him.

¶8

Today in this court she in very categorical term has stated that now she is not willing to marry the accused-applicant, even though he is willing to marry her.

¶9

The prosecutrix herself had said that she was Class VIII passed and her age was 17 years. She was in love relation with the accused-applicant for last 2 years. The accused-applicant and the prosecutrix belong to different caste and since the family of the prosecutrix was not ready to marry her with the accused-applicant she had decided to elope with the accusedapplicant from her house. She had gone to Pratapgarh with the accused-applicant and thereafter they went to Prayagraj and from Prayagraj they went to Surat.

¶10

In her statement recorded under section 164 CrPC it was said that on 13th January 2022, i.e., after 21 days from the date of her recording the statement under section 161 CrPC, on threats extended by the accused-applicant she had gone with him to Surat and the accused-applicant forcibly made physical relations with her.

¶11

There may be some substance in the submission of the learned counsel for the accused-applicant that the statement of the prosecutrix recorded under section 164 CrPC was under pressure of her family members in as much as she remained with her family and parents for 21 days after she was recovered

¶12

and her statement was recorded on 28 December 2021. Her medical age has been determined to be 18 years. The accusedapplicant is in jail since 23rd December 2021 .

¶13

Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case this Court is of the view that the accused-applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail. The application is allowed .

¶14

Let applicant Satyam Yadav S/o Moti Lal be released on bail in F.I.R./Cased Crime No. 396 of 2021 under sections 376, 363, 366, I.P.C., section 3/4, Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and section 3(2)(5A, 3(2)5, 3(1)(b), Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of Court concerned with the following conditions :-

¶15

(i) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates 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.

¶16

(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 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶17

(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. is issued and the 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 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶18

(iv) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) 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.

¶19

( Dinesh Kumar Singh, J. )

¶20

Order Date :- 14.12.2022 A.Nigam

¶21

Digitally signed by ANUJ NIGAM Date: 2022.12.19 18:04:19 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Satyam Yadav S/O Moti Lal v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Satyam Yadav S/O Moti Lal v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home and 3 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

Faiz Khan @ Ziaul Vs State of U.P.

Bramha Prakash Tiwari Vs State of U.P. Thru. Central Bureau of Investigation /Anti Co.

Anil Kumar Mishra Vs State of U.P. Thru Prin.Secy. Home

Subhash Lodh Vs State of U.P. through Principle Secretary Home, Civil Secretariat, Lucknow

Buin Urf Gudun Urf Arjun Kumar S/O Sadashiv Yadav Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home

Avadhesh Verma S/O Sri Raj Narayan (Third Bail) Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko