Dismissed

Rishipal Yadav v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC3 Aug 2023BAIL/10123/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court rejected the bail application of an applicant accused of rape, citing his long criminal history and prior conviction for murder. The court directed the trial court to conclude the trial within eight months and allowed the applicant to review the bail prayer if the trial is not concluded.

What did the court decide?

The bail application was rejected. The trial court was directed to conclude the trial within eight months from the date of production of the certified copy of this order.

Rishipal Yadav Vs State of U.P. — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:156047

¶2

Court No. - 70

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 10123 of 2021

¶4

Applicant :- Rishipal Yadav Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Amit Kumar Srivastava,Ashok Kumar Nigam,Divya Jyoti Pandey,Vikram Singh Shrivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Vikas Tiwari

¶5

Hon'ble Sameer Jain,J.

¶6

Heard Sri Ashok Kumar Nigam, learned counsel for the applicant; Sri Gaurank Dwivedi, learned counsel for the informant and Sri Sanjay Kumar Singh, learned AGA for the Staterespondent.

¶7

The instant application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 189 of 2019 (S.T. No. 778 of 2020), under Sections 376, 506 IPC, Police Station Nawabad, District Jhansi, during pendency of the trial in the court below.

¶8

FIR of the present case was lodged on 5.4.2019 against the applicant under sections 376 and 506 IPC and according to the FIR, applicant sexually exploited the informant under the false promise of marriage and on 1.2.2019 when she pressurized him to perform marriage with her then applicant again committed rape with her on the gun point and also threatened her.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that informant i.e. prosecutrix of the case is admittedly a major lady aged about 24 years and even from the FIR and as well as from her both the statements recorded under sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. it appears that she was a consenting party.

¶10

He further submitted that actually father of the applicant was murdered by one Rakesh Yadav and in this regard he is facing trial under sections 364A, 302, 201 IPC and on the behest of accused Rakesh Yadav prosecutrix i.e informant of the case totally on the basis of false allegations lodged FIR of the present case against the applicant.

¶11

He next submitted that applicant is although having criminal history of 13 cases but he has explained the criminal history of the applicant in para-18 of the affidavit and supplementary affidavits filed in support of the instant bail application and applicant is in jail in the present matter since 8.12.2020 i.e. for more than two and a half years.

¶12

He further submitted that for last about a year, continuously NBW has been issued against the prosecutrix but till date, she could not appear before the trial court, therefore, it appears that without any fault of the applicant trial is pending and trial is moving with languid pace and there is no hope that in early future, it will be concluded.

¶13

Per contra, learned AGA and learned counsel for the informant vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that there are allegation in the FIR and as well as in both the statements of the victim recorded during investigation that he sexually exploited her under false promise of marriage.

¶14

They further, submitted that applicant is hardened criminal and he is having a long criminal history of about thirteen cases and out of thirteen cases, he was convicted in two cases including in a case of Section 302 IPC in which he was awarded life imprisonment and there is every possibility that if applicant would be released on

¶15

bail then prosecutrix will positively be not appear before the court concerned and even if she will appear then also she will not in a position to give any evidence against the applicant.

¶16

They further submitted that considering the criminal antecedents of the applicant coupled with the fact that applicant is a convicted person he should not be released on bail, however, trial court may be directed to conclude the trial at the earliest in accordance with law.

¶17

Learned AGA further submitted that if this Court will direct the trial court to conclude the trial within a specified period then State will do all the endeavour to produce the prosecutrix before the trial court.

¶18

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case.

¶19

From the perusal of the record, it reflects that there is allegation of sexual exploitation against the applicant in the FIR as well as in both the statements of the victim recorded under sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C.

¶20

Further from the perusal of the record, it also reflects that applicant is having very decent criminal history of more than 13 cases and from perusal of the criminal history, it appears that he also faced trial under section 302 IPC in which he has already convicted, therefore, I find force in the argument advanced by learned AGA and learned counsel appearing for the informant that if applicant would be enlarged on bail then there is every possibility to tamper with the prosecution evidence as till date prosecutrix could not be appeared before the trial court, therefore,

¶21

considering the long criminal history of the applicant and the fact that applicant has already convicted for the offence under section 302 IPC, in my view, applicant is not entitled to be released on bail.

¶22

Accordingly, the instant bail application stands rejected .

¶23

However, considering the fact that applicant is in jail for almost two and a half years, trial court is directed to conclude the trial of the case within eight months from the date of production of certified copy of this order strictly as per provision of section 309 Cr.P.C. without granting any unnecessary adjournment to either of the parties, if there is no legal impediment.

¶24

It is further provided that applicant may review his prayer of bail after eight months if trial is not cocluded.

¶25

It is clarified that the observations made herein are limited to the facts brought in by the parties pertaining to the disposal of bail application and the said observations shall have no bearing on the merits of the case during trial.

¶26

Order Date :- 3.8.2023

¶27

Ankita

¶28

Digitally signed by :- ANKITA SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Rishipal Yadav v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rishipal 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sonu Vs State of U.P.

Aman Vs State of U.P. and Another

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

Lavkush Vs State of U.P. and Another

Smt. Mamta Vs State of U.P.

Chandra Mani @ Dablu @ Mahraj Pandey Vs State of U.P.