Vijay @ Love Yadav Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Court No. - 48

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 22489 of 2022

Applicant :- Vijay @ Love Yadav Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Sunil Kumar Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Ali Zamin,J.

¶5

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

¶6

The present bail application has been filed by the applicant with a prayer to enlarge him on bail in Case Crime No.167 of 2021, under Sections 363, 366, 376 I.P.C. and Section 5 tha/6 POCSO Act, P.S. Awagarh, District Etah.

¶7

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that according to F.I.R. version victim aged about 16 years was enticed away by the applicant on 25.06.2021. In statement under Sections 161 & 164 Cr.P.C., victim has levelled allegation of rape against the applicant. As per recovery memo, victim was recovered on 01.07.2021. As per scholar register and transfer certificate, date of birth of the victim is 06.04.2004, according to which at the time of incident, she was 17 years, 2 months and 19 days old. As per certificate issued by C.M.O., Etah, she was 18-19 years old. She has levelled allegation of rape in her statement before the Doctor also at the time of medical examination but she was major and also accompanied the applicant upto Kullu Manali from which it appears that she was a consenting party but after recovery under influence of the parents, he has turned her stand. There is no possibility of the applicant of fleeing away from the judicial process or tampering with the witnesses and, in case, the applicant is enlarged on bail, the applicant shall not misuse the liberty of bail. It is next contended that the applicant is languishing in jail since 01.07.2021.

¶8

Per contra, learned A.G.A. opposed the bail prayer of the applicant and submits that as per school record, she was minor at the time of incident and in her statement under Sections 161 & 164 Cr.P.C. as well as before the Doctor at the time of medical examination as specifically stated that against her will applicant committed rape upon her, therefore, the applicant is not entitled for bail.

¶9

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case as well as

¶10

submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties, as per F.I.R. version applicant had enticed away the victim and as per medical report, she was 18-19 years old, recovery along with applicant after a week on 01.07.2021, without expressing any opinion on merit of the case, the applicant is entitled for bail, let the applicant- Vijay @ Love Yadav involved in aforesaid case crime be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two local sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned, subject to the following conditions :-

¶11

(i) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he will not tamper with the evidence and will not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witnesses and will cooperate with the trial. The applicant 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.

¶12

(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.

¶13

(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.

¶14

(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.

¶15

Order Date :- 3.6.2022 Jitendra

¶16

Digitally signed by JITENDRA KUMAR PATEL Date: 2022.06.03 17:11:57 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Vijay @ Love Yadav v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vijay @ Love Yadav v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Chandra Pal Vs State of U.P. and Another

Seraj @ Sonu Vs State of U.P.

Bharat Lal and 2 Others Vs State of U.P and Another

Unis Khan Vs State of U.P. and Another

Dr. Mohammad Ajmal Vs State of U.P.

Neeraj Sharma@ Naresh Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others