Allowed

Amit Yadav v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC27 May 2022BAIL/7478/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment grants bail to Amit Yadav in a rape case pending before the trial court. The High Court noted material contradictions in victim statements and the failure to record the husband's statement. The court directly called the bail application allowed based on settled legal principles regarding bail jurisprudence.

What did the court decide?

Released on bail on furnishing personal bond and two sureties in the like amount, subject to standard conditions including presence at trial and no contact with witnesses.

Amit Yadav Vs State of U.P. — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 72

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 7478 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Amit Yadav

¶4

Opposite Party :- State of U.P.

¶5

Counsel for Applicant :- Chandra Prakash Srivastava,Pankaj Sharma

¶6

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶7

Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Pachori,J.

¶8

Heard Shri Chandra Prakash Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Manoj Kumar Dwivei, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material on record.

¶9

The present bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant Amit Yadav under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No. 647 of 2021 for offence punishable under Sections 323, 504, 506, 376 of the Indian Penal Code registered at Police Station Kotwali Nagar, District Etah during pendency of the trial, after rejecting the bail application of the applicant by the Sessions Judge, Etah vide order dated 28.01.2022.

¶10

Brief facts of the case are that the First Information Report dated 31.07.2021 at about 20;47 hours has been lodged by the victim against the applicant under Sections 323, 504, 354 I.P.C. stating therein that she is residing at a rented house of father of the applicant who is habitual of creating nuisance by assaulting her and abusing her, came to her on 31.07.2022 at 12.00 noon while she was preparing food, talked with her in indecent manner using uncomplimentary language. On objection being raised by her, applicant forcibly caught and molested her.

¶11

After lodging the first information report, statement of the victim under section 161 Cr.P.C. was recorded on 01.08.2021. Medical examination of the victim was recorded on 02.08.2021. Statement of the victim under Section 164 Cr.P.C.,was recorded on 15.10.2022. After recording the statement of victim and other prosecution witnesses under section 161 Cr.P.C., chargesheet has been submitted against the applicant on 03.01.2022. The applicant was arrested on 01.01.2022.

¶12

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case due

¶13

to ulterior motive. It is further submitted that age of the applicant is 22 years. It is further submitted that no date and time has been mentioned in the F.I.R. with regard to offence of rape or molestation. It is further submitted that there is material contradiction/ improvement in the allegations made in the F.I.R, statements of victim recorded under section 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. It is further submitted that as per F.I.R. alleged incident took place at 12.00 noon on 31.07.2021 while in her statement recorded under section 164 Cr.P.C. wherein she stated that alleged incident is stated to have been taken place at 11.00 P.M in night on 31.07.2021. It is further submitted that as per statement of the victim recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C, the applicant raped her after locking the door from inside while in her another statement wherein she stated that door remained opened due to fitting of cooler. It is further submitted that statement of husband of the victim has not been recorded during the investigation.

¶14

He has next argued that the applicant has no criminal history to his credit. If the applicant is released on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail. The applicant is not convicted in cognizable offence by any court.

¶15

Per contra , learned AGA has supported the order passed by the Sessions court and vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of bail to the applicant and submits that the allegations involved are very serious in nature and the delay in lodging the FIR cannot be said to be fatal to the case at this juncture while considering the application of bail. But he could not point out any material to the contrary. He further submits that in case the applicant is released on bail, he will again indulge in similar activities and will misuse the liberty of bail.

¶16

After considering the facts of the present case it prima facie appears that;

¶17

(a) age of the applicant is 22 years at the time lodging of the F.I.R.;

¶18

(b) no date and time has been mentioned in the F.I.R. with regard to offence of rape or molestation;

¶19

(c) there is material contradiction/ improvement in the allegations made in the F.I.R, statements of victim recorded under section 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. It would not be appropriate to discuss the same at this stage;

¶20

(d) as per F.I.R. alleged incident took place at 12.00 noon on 31.07.2021 while in her statement recorded under section 164

¶21

Cr.P.C. wherein she stated that alleged incident is stated to have been taken place at 11.00 P.M in night on 31.07.2021

¶22

(e) statement of husband of the victim has not been recorded during the investigation.

¶23

It is a settled law that while granting bail, the court has to keep in mind the nature of accusation, the nature of the evidence in support thereof, the severity of the punishment which conviction will entail, the character of the accused, the circumstances which are peculiar to the accused, his role and involvement in the offence, his involvement in other cases and reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being tampered with.

¶24

Taking into account the totality of facts and keeping in mind, the ratio of the Apex Court's judgment in the case of State of Rajasthan v. Balchand @ Baliay (1977) 4 SCC 308, Gudikanti Narasimhulu And Ors., v. Public Prosecutor, High Court Of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 1978 SC 429 , Ram Govind Upadhyay v. Sudarshan Singh & Ors., (2002) 3 SCC 598, Prasanta Kumar Sarkar v. Ashis Chatterjee & Anr., (2010) 14 SCC 496 and Mahipal v. Rajesh Kumar & Anr., (2020) 2 SCC 118 , the larger interest of the public/State and other circumstances, but without expressing any opinion on the merits, I am of the view that it is a fit case for grant of bail. Hence, the present bail application is allowed.

¶25

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

¶26

(i) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat, or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶27

(ii) The applicant shall not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witnesses.

¶28

(iii) 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 of Cr.P.C.

¶29

(iv) 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 the trial court.

¶30

(v) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel.

¶31

(vi) The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal activity or commission of any crime after being released on bail.

¶32

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail. 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 in accordance with law.

¶33

The trial court may make all possible efforts/endeavour and try to conclude the trial expeditiously in accordance with law after the release of the applicant, if there is no other legal impediment.

¶34

It is made clear that the observations made in this order are limited to the purpose of determination of this bail application and will in no way be construed as an expression on the merits of the case. The trial court shall be absolutely free to arrive at its independent conclusions on the basis of evidence led, unaffected by anything said in this order.

¶35

The party shall file computer generated copy of such order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad, self attested by the applicant alongwith a self attested identity proof of the said person (preferably Aadhar Card) mentioning the mobile number to which the said Aadhar Card is linked.

¶36

The concerned Court/Authority/Official shall verify the authenticity of such computerized copy of the order from the official website of High Court Allahabad and shall make a declaration of such verification in writing.

¶37

Order Date :- 27.5.2022

¶38

aks

¶39

Digitally signed by ANIL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA Date: 2022.06.01 15:37:24 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Amit Yadav v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Amit Yadav v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sipahi Lal Vs State of U.P.

Shivam Nagar Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Smt. Meena Chauhan Vs State of U.P.

Vinay Chaudhary Vs State of U.P.

Kamlesh Singh Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Santosh Vs State of U.P.