Allowed

Gajendra Yadav v. State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko.

Allahabad HC16 Mar 2023/1306/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This bail application was allowed. The court noted material discrepancies in the informant's statements under sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C and the applicant's lack of criminal history as grounds for release on bail in a rape case.

What did the court decide?

The applicant is released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties, subject to conditions not to tamper with evidence, not to pressure witnesses, and to appear in court.

Gajendra Yadav Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko. — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Court No. - 16

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 1306 of 2023

¶3

Applicant :- Gajendra Yadav Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Dinesh Kr. Sharma,Arshad Hafeez Khan

¶4

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,J.

¶6

Heard Sri Dinesh Kr. Sharma and Sri Arshad Hafeez Khan, the learned counsels for the applicant as well as Sri Vipul Gupta, the learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶7

The instant application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 510 of 2022, under Sections 376 and 343 I.P.C., registered at Police Station Ram Nagar, District Barabanki.

¶8

The aforesaid case has been registered on the basis of an F.I.R. lodged on 11.08.2022 alleging that on 07.08.2022, the applicant met her while she was on the way, the informant stated that she did not know the applicant since before. The applicant took her to his home, the applicant's wife has died, the applicant kept her in his house for three days and committed rape on her. In her statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C, the informant reiterated the F.I.R. version. She further stated that she was having five months' pregnancy through her husband.

¶9

The informant declined to undergo medico-legal examination.

¶10

In her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C, the informant made certain new allegations, which were not made by her previously.

¶11

Having considered the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, keeping in view the fact that the informant has categorically stated that she did not know the applicant since before but she has mentioned the name of the applicant in the F.I.R and she has also mentioned that the applicant's wife is no more, that there are certain material discrepancies in the statement of the informant recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C and 164 Cr.P.C; the applicant has no criminal history and he has been languishing in jail since 13.08.2022, I am of the view that the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail in the aforesaid case.

¶12

Accordingly, this bail application stands allowed.

¶13

Let the applicant Gajendra Yadav , be released on bail in Case Crime No. 510 of 2022, under Sections 376 and 343 I.P.C., registered at Police Station Ram Nagar, District Barabanki. on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of magistrate/court concerned, subject to following conditions:-

¶14

(i) the applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence;

¶15

(ii) the applicant shall not pressurize the prosecution witnesses;

¶16

(iii) the applicant shall appear on each and every date fixed by the trial court.

¶17

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the prosecution shall be at liberty to move bail cancellation application before this Court.

¶18

Order Date :- 16.3.2023

¶19

Preeti.

¶20

Digitally signed by :- PREETI GAUTAM High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Gajendra Yadav v. State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gajendra Yadav v. State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Chetram Lodh @ Jijau Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home Secrt. Lko. and 3 Others

Raja Ram and 3 Ors. Vs State of U.P.

Asharam Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home U.P. Lko.

Hoshram Vs State of U.P. Thru.Addl . Chief Secy. Home Civil Secrt. Lko. and 3 Others

Sohan Giri Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Smt. Mullayin Alias Aayesha Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.