Allowed

Pramod Yadav v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC2 Feb 2023BAIL/19448/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a bail application filed by Pramod Yadav, who was arrested for offences under IPC and POCSO. The court relied on the fact that the applicant was not named in the FIR and victims refused medico-legal tests, ordering his release on bond without commenting on trial merit.

What did the court decide?

Accused applicant Pramod Yadav released on bail on furnishing personal bond and two sureties with conditions regarding court appearances.

Pramod Yadav Vs State of U.P. — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Court No. - 81

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 19448 of 2021

¶3

Applicant :- Pramod Yadav Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Akhilesh Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Mrs. Saroj Yadav,J.

¶5

This is the first bail application filed on behalf of the accused/applicant Pramod Yadav involved in Case Crime No. 64 of 2020, under Section 363, 366, 376 of I.P.C., Section 3/4 of POCSO Act and Section 3(2)(5) of SC/ST Act, Police Station Pataherwa, District Kushi Nagar.

¶6

Heard Mr. Akhilesh Singh, learned counsel for the accused/applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State-respondent and perused the material on record.

¶7

None is present on behalf of the informant, though service of notice on respondent is sufficient.

¶8

Learned counsel for the accused/applicant submitted that accused/applicant is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the crime. He further submitted that accused/applicant was not named in the FIR. In the FIR two persons namely Kuldeep and Vishal were named alongwith one Govind Ram the dance master. The police exonerated Kuldeep and Vishal and for ulterior motive implicated the accused/applicant. The accused/applicant embarked in the same bus from where the victims were recovered. He further submitted that both the victims have refused to undergo medico legal test, as is evident from the report of the doctor available at page 40 and 42. The accused/applicant is languishing in jail since 23.03.2020. Hence, he may be enlarged on bail.

¶9

Learned A.G.A. appearing on behalf of the State opposed the bail application of the accused/applicant and submitted that both the victims are minors and they have named the accused/applicant as wrong doer. One of the victim has mentioned in her statement recorded under Section 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. that accused applicant committed rape on the victim. Hence the accused/applicant should not be enlarged on bail.

¶10

Considered the rival submissions and perused the material available on record.

¶11

It transpires from the record that accused applicant is not named in the FIR. One of the victim has made allegation of rape against the accused/applicant, but they both refused to undergo medico legal test. The accused applicant is languishing in jail since23.03.2020.

¶12

Considering the facts and circumstances and without commenting on merit of the case, it appears just to enlarge the accused applicant on bail.

¶13

Accordingly, the bail application filed on behalf of applicant is allowed.

¶14

Let the applicant Pramod Yadav , involved in Case Crime No. 64 of 2020, under Section 363, 366, 376 of I.P.C., Section 3/4 of POCSO Act and Section 3(2)(5) of SC/ST Act, Police Station Pataherwa, District Kushi Nagar be released on bail on her furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions;

¶15

(i) 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 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.

¶16

(ii) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶17

(iii) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued and the applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶18

(iv) 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 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 against him in accordance with law.

¶19

(v)The party shall file computer generated copy of such order

¶20

downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad.

¶21

(vi) The computer generated copy of such order shall be self attested by the counsel of the party concerned.

¶22

(vii) 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.

¶23

(Mrs. Saroj Yadav, J.)

¶24

Order Date :- 2.2.2023 A. K. Singh

¶25

Digitally signed by :- ASHISH KUMAR SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Pramod Yadav v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pramod 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

Ravendra @ Ravindra Vs State of U.P. and Another

Surendra @ Shailendra Kumar Vs State of U.P. and Another

Raj Basant @ Gopal Vs State of U.P.

Pawan Kumar Vs State of U.P.

Nilesh Kumar @ Dheeraj Vs State of U.P.

Rameshwar Prasad Vs State of Up