Dismissed

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

Allahabad HC2 Aug 2022BAIL/4179/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment rejects a bail application by Shailesh Yadav in a POCSO case. The court held that the alleged settlement involves a future act and concerns a non-compoundable offence, making the compromise affidavit insufficient grounds for bail.

What did the court decide?

Bail prayer dismissed; bail application rejected due to non-compoundable nature of offence and future conditions in compromise.

Shailesh Yadav Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 91

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 4179 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Shailesh Yadav Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Radhey Shyam Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Samit Gopal,J.

¶5

List revised.

¶6

Heard Sri Radhey Shyam Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri S.B. Maurya, learned counsel for the State and perused the material on record.

¶7

This bail application under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the applicant-Shailesh Yadav, seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No.136 of 2020, under Sections 376, 504, 506 IPC read with Section 3/4 POCSO Act, Police Station Kotwali Fatehgarh, District Farrukhabad.

¶8

This is the second bail application. The first bail application of the applicant was rejected by this Court vide order dated 07.10.2020 passed in Crl. Misc. Bail Application No.26956 of 2020 : Shailesh Yadav Vs. State of U.P.

¶9

Notice was issued to the first informant/opposite party no.4 vide order dated 14.2.2022. As per office report dated 1.8.2022, report of the C.J.M. concerned has been received stating that notice has been served to first informant/opposite party no.4 but no one appears on behalf of opposite party no.4 even when the matter is taken up in the revised list.

¶10

Learned counsel for the applicant argued that as of now a settlement has been entered into between the prosecutrix, the applicant and their family members after which the prosecutrix has given an application and affidavit before the Special Judge, POCSO Act on 24.12.2021, copy of which is annexed as annexure no.7 to the affidavit filed in support of bail application, in which she states that due to well-wishers, the family of the victim and the applicant have entered into a compromise and it has been decided that as and when the applicant comes out from jail, he will marry the victim, as such the applicant deserves to be released on bail. The applicant is in jail since 31.05.2020.

¶11

Per contra learned counsel for the State vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and argued that the present case is under the

¶12

offences which are non-compoundable. The compromise cannot be given effect and even otherwise the compromise is for an act at a later point of time. The first bail application has been rejected by a detailed order of this Court on merits.

¶13

After hearing the counsel for the parties and perusing the record, it is evident that the compromise for the offence in question is for a non-compoundable and that too on the condition of doing some act at a later point of time. The affidavit and the application of compromise cannot be considered at this stage.

¶14

Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find it a fit case for bail, hence, the bail application is rejected .

¶15

(Samit Gopal, J.)

¶16

Order Date :- 2.8.2022 Gaurav

¶17

Digitally signed by GAURAV KULSHRESTHA Date: 2022.08.03 10:20:33 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shailesh 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

Dilip Kumr Gupta Vs State of U.P.

Smt. Sunte Vs State of U.P.

Yameen Vs State of U.P.

Yunus and Others Vs State of U.P.

Dara Singh Chauhan Vs State of U.P. through Principal Secretary (Home)

Jitendra Singh Vs State of U.P.