Allowed

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

Allahabad HC12 Sept 2023BAIL/38197/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a bail application by Kuldeep Yadav accused of abduction and sexual offences, the Allahabad High Court granted bail despite charges of rape and POCSO violations. The order relied on older criminal history but cited jail overcrowding and Article 21 rather than merits, adhering to the nickname "other" for third party subject matter.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail on furnishing personal bond and two sureties

Kuldeep Yadav Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:176817

¶2

Court No. - 64

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 38197 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Kuldeep Yadav Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Ved Byas Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Siddharth,J.

¶6

List of fresh cases have been revised.

¶7

Today lawyers are on strike. The liberty of an individual cannot be curtailed because lawyers are abstaining from Court.

¶8

Heard learned A.G.A for the State and perused the material on record.

¶9

There is allegation against the applicant of abduction of minor girl with intent to marry, commission of offence of rape and penetrative sexual assault. The victim belongs to schedule caste.

¶10

After hearing the learned A.G.A and going through the record, this Court finds that the victim is aged about 19 years. Despite service of notice, no one has turned up to oppose this bail application. She is clearly a consenting party as per her statement recorded under 164 Cr.P.C and before the doctor. The applicant is in jail since 03.05.2023. Learned A.G.A has pointed out that the applicant has criminal history of one case under Sections 308, 323, 325, 504 and 506 IPC.

¶11

On the other hand learned A.G.A has opposed the prayer for bail.

¶12

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 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

¶13

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.

¶14

Let the applicant, Kuldeep Yadav, involved in Case Crime No. 155 of 2023, under Sections- 363, 366, 376 IPC and 3/4 of POCSO Act and 3(2)(v) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Police Station- Rampur Karkhana, District- Deoria, 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.

¶15

(i) The applicant shall not tamper with the evidence or threaten the witnesses.

¶16

(ii) 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.

¶17

(iii) The applicant shall remain present before the Trial Court on each date fixed, either personally or as directed by the Court. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the Trial Court may proceed against him under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶18

(iv) 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.

¶19

(v) 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.

¶20

In case, of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.

¶21

Identity and residence proof of the applicant and sureties be verified by the court concerned before the bonds are accepted.

¶22

Order Date :- 12.9.2023 Rohit

¶23

Digitally signed by :- ROHIT DAS High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kuldeep 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

Mukesh @ Bhairo Prasad @ Mikku Nishad Vs State of U.P.

Jang Bahadur Vs State of U.P.

Arvind Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Teejuram Vs State of U.P.

Raju @ Raj Kumar @ Raj Thakur Vs State of U.P.

Zaheer Ansari Vs State of U.P.