Allowed

Yashveer @ Iliyas v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC3 Oct 2023BAIL/33691/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the second bail application by the applicant accused of kidnapping, abduction, rape, and POCSO offenses. Relying on the hostile testimony of the victim and first informant which contradicted the prosecution version, the Court granted bail subject to strict conditions, notably barring compensation to the victim.

What did the court decide?

The applicant to be released on bail furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount, subject to strict conditions.

Yashveer @ Iliyas Vs State of U.P. and 3… — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:189214

¶2

Court No. - 69

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 33691 of 2022

¶4

Applicant :- Yashveer @ Iliyas Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Ravi Shankar Tripathi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Garima Sahu

¶5

Hon'ble Samit Gopal,J.

¶6

1. List revised.

¶7

Heard Sri Ravi Shankar Tripathi, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Ajai Singh, learned A.G.A.-I for the State and perused the material on record. Ms. Garima Sahu, learned counsel for the first informant is not present despite the matter being taken up in the revised list.

¶8

This bail application under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the applicant-Yashveer @ Iliyas, seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No. 340 of 2020, under sections 363, 366, 376(3) I.P.C. and 3/4 POCSO Act, Police Station Bisauli, District Budaun.

¶9

This is the second bail application. The first bail application was rejected by this Court vide order dated 24.09.2021 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 33304 of 2021 (Yashveer @ Iliyas Versus State of U.P. and another).

¶10

Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the fresh and new ground in the present second bail application is that the victim was examined as P.W.-1 before the trial court and the first informant Veerpal was examined as P.W.-2 therein and both the said witnesses have not supported the prosecution case and have been declared hostile by the trial court. Learned counsel for the applicant has placed before the Court para 12 of the affidavit in support of the bail application and annexure no. 3 being the statements of P.W.-1 and P.W.-2 to buttress his argument. It is argued that the victim has totally denied the prosecution version and has stated that she had a quarrel with her mother after which she was beaten and then in anger she left the house and went to the house of her Bua and remained there for 20-22 days. She further

¶11

subsequently denied the participation of the applicant in the present matter. It is argued that looking to the said statements, the implication of the applicant in the present matter is false. It is argued that the applicant is not having any criminal history as stated in para 19 of the affidavit. The applicant is in jail since 16.12.2020.

¶12

Per contra learned counsel for the State has opposed the prayer for bail and argued that the first bail application of the applicant was rejected on merit. It is argued that the victim is a minor aged about 15 years but could not dispute the fact regarding the deposition of the victim and the first informant before the trial court.

¶13

After hearing the counsel for the parties and perusing the record, it is evident that this is second bail application on the ground that the victim and the first informant being the prosecution witnesses have not supported the prosecution and have been declared hostile. The statement of the victim is totally in contrast with the prosecution version.

¶14

Looking to the facts and circumstances of this case, the nature of evidence and also the absence of any convincing material to indicate the possibility of tampering with the evidence, this Court is of the view that the applicant may be enlarged on bail.

¶15

Let the applicant, Yashveer @ Iliyas , be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions which are being imposed in the interest of justice:-

¶16

i) The applicant will not tamper with prosecution evidence and will not harm or harass the victim/complainant in any manner whatsoever.

¶17

ii) The applicant will abide the orders of court, will attend the court on every date and will not delay the disposal of trial in any manner whatsoever.

¶18

(iii) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the date 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.

¶19

(iv) The applicant will not misuse the liberty of bail in any manner whatsoever. 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., may be issued and if 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 I.P.C.

¶20

(v) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on dates fixed for (1) opening of the case, (2) framing of charge and (3) 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 and the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229-A IPC.

¶21

(vi) The trial court may make all possible efforts/endeavour and try to conclude the trial expeditiously after the release of the applicant.

¶22

The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be verified by court concerned and in case of breach of any of the conditions mentioned above, court concerned will be at liberty to cancel the bail and send the applicant to prison.

¶23

Since the prosecutrix has completely denied the prosecution version, she is not entitled to the benefit of any compensation paid by the State Government which has been collected from the taxpayers of the country. The trial court will consider issuance of a direction against the prosecutrix to refund the amount received by her as compensation, if any, in the appropriate head of the treasury account.

¶24

The bail application is allowed.

¶25

Order Date :- 3.10.2023 K.K. Maurya

¶26

(Samit Gopal,J.)

¶27

Digitally signed by :- KAMLESH KUMAR MAURYA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Yashveer @ Iliyas v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Yashveer @ Iliyas 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Gokul Yadav Vs State of U.P.

Jai Prakash Vs State of U.P.

Anarkali Vs State of U.P.

Sam Boli @ Shyam Bholi Vs State of U.P.

Smt. Guddi Devi Vs State of U.P.

Rohitash Sharma Vs State of U.P.