Allowed

Rohit Yadav v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC28 Aug 2023BAIL/29934/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court allowed bail to the applicant in a case involving alleged penetrative sexual assault and abduction under POCSO and IPC. The court relied on the uncertainty regarding the victim's actual age based on ossification reports and the overcrowding of jails to grant bail.

What did the court decide?

Bail allowed on personal bond and two sureties subject to verification and compliance with specific conditions.

Rohit Yadav Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others — Matrimonial and Divorce | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:172572

¶2

Court No. - 64

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 29934 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Rohit Yadav Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Upendra Upadhyay Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Gyan Prakash

¶5

Hon'ble Siddharth,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicant; Shri Gyan Prakash, learned counsel for the informant and learned A.G.A.

¶7

The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant, Rohit Yadav, with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No. 424 of 2022, under Sections 363,376DA,323,328, 344 IPC and section 3/4(2) POCSO Act Police Station Jaithara, DistrictEtah, during pendency of trial.

¶8

There is allegation against the applicant of abduction of minor girl, commission of offences of rape, beating , intoxication, unlawful confinement and penetrative sexual assault. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that as per statement of the victim recorded under section 164 Cr.P.C. she is consenting party She has neither made allegation of abduction nor rape against the applicant. As per ossification test report of the victim send by C.M.O. Etah, she has been found to 19-20 years. At the time of incident she was aged about 17-18 years. Given margin of one year on higher side she can be considered to be major. The applicant is in jail since 31.1.2023. He has criminal history of one case.

¶9

Learned A.G.A. and learned counsel for the informant have opposed the bail prayer of the applicant but could not dispute the aforesaid facts.

¶10

Keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused; submissions of the learned counsel for the parties noted above; finding force in the submissions made by the learned

¶11

counsel for the applicant; keeping view the uncertainty regarding conclusion of trial; one sided investigation by police, ignoring the case of accused side; applicant being under-trial having fundamental right to speedy trial; larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India; considering the dictum of Apex Court in the 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 ; 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

¶18

liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law to ensure presence of the 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

OfÏce is directed to send back the ossification test report of the victim to court below under the seal cover.

¶22

Order Date :- 28.8.2023

¶23

Atul kr. sri.

¶24

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

Rohit Yadav v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rohit Yadav 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dharampal Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Smt. Sabittra Devi @ Savitri Devi Vs State of U.P.

Gangesh Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Satish Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Shahrukh Vs State of U.P.

Santoshi Devi Vs State of U.P.