Allowed

Sanju Yadav v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC12 Dec 2022BAIL/38951/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment grants bail to Sanju Yadav in a sexual offence case involving IPC sections 363, 366, 376(3) and POCSO Act. The court found that the victim established a consensual relationship and marriage with the applicant, and she is willing to return. Bail was granted subject to strict conditions including visiting Nari Niketan.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail on personal bond and two sureties subject to conditions including visit to Nari Niketan within 15 days.

Sanju Yadav Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 75

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 38951 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Sanju Yadav Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Mahendra Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Bhavisya Sharma

¶4

Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.

¶5

Mr. Bhavisya Sharma, learned counsel for the informant filed counter affidavit in Court today, is taken on record. Office is directed to register the same.

¶6

Heard Mr. Mahendra Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, Mr. Bhavisya Sharma, learned counsel for the informant and Mr. K.P. Pathak, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material on record.

¶7

The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant, Sanju Yadav with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No.52 of 2022, under Sections 363, 366, 376(3) I.P.C. & Section 3/4 POCSO Act, Police Station-Usrahar, District-Etawah, during pendency of trial.

¶8

As per FIR lodged by mother of the victim, who was enticed away by the applicant on 13.03.2022 at about 5:00 P.M.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. He further submits that after recovery of the girl, her statements under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. have been recorded. As per aforesaid statements, the relationship between applicant and victim is consensual. In her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C., she stated that the applicant was known to her and was friendly with her. She has performed marriage with the applicant and staying with him as husband and wife. She has not stated anything negative against the applicant. She has specifically stated that she came to Allahabad High Court and performed marriage on 24.03.2022. As per school certificate her date of birth is 09.01.2005, that was she is nearly 17 years old at the time of incident. In the FIR, her age is mentioned as 19 years. As per medical, she is 18 years old. Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that the purpose of POCSO Act is to protect the minor from sexual exploitation and not to criminalize consensual romantic relationship. He further submits at bar that victim has been sent to Nari Niketan and she

¶10

is ready and willing to come and stay as wife of the applicant, after he is released on bail. The applicant is languishing in jail since 03.05.2022. The applicant does not have any previous criminal history. In case, he is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate in the trial by all means. Lastly, it is submitted that there is no chance of applicant fleeing away from judicial process or tampering with the witnesses.

¶11

Learned counsel for the informant has pointed out at page 49 of the application, from where, it is clear that the victim became pregnant. He further submits that keeping the aforesaid fact in mind, the Court may direct that in case, the applicant after being released on bail does not take proper care of his wife and child, the informant will be free to take legal recourse in accordance with law.

¶12

Per contra learned A.G.A. has opposed the bail prayer of the applicant by contending that the innocence of the applicant cannot be adjudged at pre trial stage, therefore, he does not deserves any indulgence. In case the applicant is released on bail he will again indulge in similar activities and will misuse the liberty of bail.

¶13

Keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, severity of punishment, submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, the Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed.

¶14

Let the applicant- Sanju 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:-

¶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

¶18

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.

¶19

(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.

¶20

(v) Applicant will go and move an application before the concerned Nari Niketan to keep the victim as his wife, after 15 days from release on bail.

¶21

It is clarified that the observations, if any, made in this order are strictly confined to the disposal of the bail application and must not be construed to have any reflection on the ultimate merits of the case.

¶22

It is always open to the informant to take legal recourse in special situation where the victim is being exploited in such cases.

¶23

Order Date :- 12.12.2022 Rahul.

¶24

Digitally signed by RAHUL GOSWAMI Date: 2022.12.16 10:41:29 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Sanju Yadav v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sanju Yadav v. State of U.P. 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

Sher Singh Alias Mohan Singh Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Vishnu Singh Vs State of U.P.

Guddu @ Peetam Lal Vs State of U.P.

Maharam Vs State of U.P.

Akil Ahmad Vs State of U.P.

Maya Rai Vs State of U.P.