Allowed

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

Allahabad HC11 May 2022BAIL/14185/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this bail application involving allegations of rape and other serious offences, the High Court granted bail. The court noted the unexplained delay in FIR lodgement and the complex relationship between the parties as factors, finding the applicant fit for release on personal bond with sureties.

What did the court decide?

Released on bail by furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount, subject to conditions regarding tampering with evidence and attending court.

Nakul Yadav Vs State of U.P. and Another — Anticipatory Bail | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 44

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 14185 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Nakul Yadav Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Harish Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Gorakh Yadav

¶4

Hon'ble Ashwani Kumar Mishra,J.

¶5

Heard counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for State and Sri Sunit Kumar Yadav, counsel for the informant.

¶6

The present bail application has been filed by the applicant seeking enlargement on bail in Case Crime No. 2717 of 2018, under Sections 120B, 307, 323, 376(2)(D), 392, 427, 452, 504, 506 IPC and 67 of Information Technology (Amendment) Act, 2008, Police Station Sahibabad, District Ghaziabad.

¶7

The FIR has been lodged on 06.09.2018 on the basis of an order passed by the Magistrate under section 156(3) Cr.P.C. for which application itself was filed on 24.04.2018. The victim has stated that offence under section 376 IPC has been committed by the applicant alongwith co-accused Sachin Yadav, who happens to be the applicant's younger brother and his elder sister Babita Yadav. As per the allegation the informant, who is police Constable, returned to her room at 09.00 PM and while she was cooking food her door was knocked and when she opened the door accused persons entered the house and offence of rape was committed upon her. Certain amount etc. is also alleged to have been taken. It is also stated that since report has not been lodged in the matter as such she was compelled to move application under section 156(3) Cr.P.C.

¶8

Counsel for the applicant states that it is unbelievable that the victim could not lodge FIR particularly when she herself is Constable in Delhi Police since 2015. It is also contended that six FIRs are lodged against the accused persons by the informant of similar kind. It is also argued that the applicant had contracted marriage with the informant and certificate in that regard has also been annexed as Annexure-1. It is urged that only because in subsequent point in time the matrimonial issue has cropped up that FIR itself has been lodged against the applicant. Attention of the Court has been invited to paragraph no.13 of the affidavit which contains the statement of victim in Case Crime No.1773 of 2021 in which she has admitted that she is live in relationship for the last three years but she is not

¶9

inclined to disclose name of the person with whom she was in live in relationship. Submission is that neither reasons for delay are explained nor any injury was inflicted and the FIR allegations are false. It is further argued that the applicant is in jail since 10.10.2021 and the trial is not likely to conclude shortly and that the applicant undertakes that he will not misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate in the conduct of trial.

¶10

Sri Sumit Kumar Yadav, Advocate has appeared for the informant and the bail application is also opposed by learned A.G.A. It is stated that the applicant is not entitled to grant of bail in view of the serious nature of allegations levelled against him.

¶11

Having considered the respective submissions advanced and perusal of the records and the fact that delay in lodgement of FIR has not been prima facie explained alongwith the previous relationship between the parties, including successive FIRs lodged, without expressing any view on the merits of the case, I am of the opinion that it is a fit case for grant of bail.

¶12

Let the applicant - Nakul Yadav be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of magistrate/court concerned, subject to following conditions:-

¶13

(i) The applicant will not tamper with prosecution evidence.

¶14

(ii) The applicant will abide the orders of court, will attend the court on every date and will not delay the disposal of trial in any manner whatsoever.

¶15

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

¶16

(iv) The applicant will not misuse the liberty of bail in any manner whatsoever.

¶17

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.

¶18

Accordingly, the instant bail application is allowed.

¶19

Order Date :- 11.5.2022 Ashok Kr.

¶20

Digitally signed by ASHOK KUMAR Date: 2022.05.12 14:04:30 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nakul 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

Akash Nishad Vs State of U.P.

Nandani Vs State of U.P.

Manish Vs State of U.P.

Subhash Vs State of U.P.

Sunny Vs State of U.P.

Shani Agrahari and Another Vs State of U.P.