Allowed

Deepak Yadav @ Deepu Bhaiya v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC27 Sept 2022BAIL/9794/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court allowed a bail application in a gang rape case involving a minor victim belonging to an SC/ST category. Despite serious allegations and lack of instructions on victim recovery, bail was granted citing jail overcrowding and the applicant's clean record, subject to strict conditions and expeditious trial.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail upon furnishing personal bond and two sureties under strict conditions.

Deepak Yadav @ Deepu Bhaiya Vs State of U.P… — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 69

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 9794 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Deepak Yadav @ Deepu Bhaiya Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Bhupendra Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Siddharth,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A.

¶6

Time was granted to the learned A.G.A. to obtain instructions as to how victim reached Child Protection Home at Gujarat from the house of the applicant but no reply has been filed.

¶7

The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant, Deepak Yadav @ Deepu Bhaiya, with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No. 82 of 2021, under Sections 376D,323,504 IPC, Section 5/6 POCSO Act and section 3(2) V of S.C./S.T. Act Police Station Basrehar, District- Etawah, during pendency of trial.

¶8

There is allegation against the applicant that he abducted minor girl alongwith co-accused and committed offence of gang rape. The victim is stated to be minor and belonging to S.C./S.T, category.

¶9

Learned A.G.A. has filed compliance afÏdavit which shows that notice has been served upon the informant but no has put in appearance on his behalf.

¶10

After considering the rival contentions, it appears that victim has earlier absconded from her house.She is stated to be of slightly mentally retarted. From the statement of the father of the victim it appears that applicant had taken her to Gujrat. The allegations in the statement of the victim under section 164 C4.P.C. that victim was subjected to rape in front of the wife of the applicant does not inspires confidence.The victim was recovered from Child Protection Home at Gujarat. The applicant is in jail since 24.12.2021 and has no criminal history.

¶11

Keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India, considering the dictum of Apex Court in the case of Dataram Singh Vs. State of U.P. and another reported in (2018) 3 SCC 22 and recent judgment dated 11.07.2022 of the Apex Court in the case of Satendra Kumar Antil vs. C.B.I., passed in S.L.P (Crl.) No. 5191 of 2021 and considering 5-6 times overcrowding in jails over and above their capacity by the under trials and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed.

¶12

Let the applicant be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions. Further, before issuing the release order, the sureties be verified.

¶13

The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence by intimidating/ pressurizing the witnesses, during the investigation or trial.

¶14

The applicant shall cooperate in the trial sincerely without seeking any adjournment.

¶15

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

¶16

That 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 ofÏcer;

¶17

The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence and 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 to ensure presence of the

¶18

applicant.

¶19

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 default of this condition is deliberate or without sufÏcient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of his bail and proceed against him in accordance with law.

¶20

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

¶21

The trial court is directed to expedite the trial of the present case and conclude the same expeditiously preferably within a period of one year from the date of production of a certified copy of this order, if there is no legal impediment.

¶22

Order Date :- 27.9.2022 Atul kr. sri.

¶23

Digitally signed by ATUL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA Date: 2022.09.28 11:26:35 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Deepak Yadav @ Deepu Bhaiya v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Deepak Yadav @ Deepu Bhaiya 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

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vijay Shankar Yadav Vs State of U.P.

Puppu Pal Vs State of U.P.

Amit Kumar Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Ram Samujh Vs State of U.P.

Pawandev @ Pawan Kumar Vs State of U.P.

Jitendra Yadav Vs State of U.P.