Allowed

Radhey Shyam v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC4 Jul 2023BAIL/3979/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal bail application under Section 376 IPC and Section 67A IT Act, the Allahabad High Court allowed bail for the applicant. The court noted the two-year delay in filing the FIR regarding a major victim, the allegation of sexual exploitation, and the failure to recover indecent videos during investigation.

What did the court decide?

Applications allowed; Applicant released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties.

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

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:131770

¶2

Court No. - 70

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 3979 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Radhey Shyam Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Shri Prakash Dwivedi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Sameer Jain,J.

¶6

Heard Sri Shriprakash Dwivedi, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Tanay Kumar, learned AGA, for the State.

¶7

The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant with the prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No.286 of 2022, under Section 376 IPC and Section 67A Information Technology Act, Police Station Bardaha, District Azamgarh during pendency of the trial.

¶8

FIR of the present case was lodged on 19.8.2022 under Section 376 IPC and Section 67A I.T. Act against the applicant and according to the FIR, the age of the victim is about 20 years and applicant under the false promise of marriage for the last two years is sexually exploiting her and he also prepared her indecent videos and thereafter he posted indecent videos of the informant on social media.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that entire allegation against the applicant is totally false and baseless and informant, i.e., victim of the case is a major girl and even according to her, she was having relationship with applicant. He further submits, only due to dispute arose between both of them, she lodged FIR of the present case against the applicant.

¶10

He further submits that although there is allegation against the applicant that the posted indecent videos of the informant on social media but during investigation no such video could be

¶11

recovered by Investigating Officer and this fact clearly suggests that allegation made against the applicant is totally false.

¶12

He further submits that applicant is not having any previous criminal history and he is in jail since 14.9.2022, i.e., for the last about more than nine months

¶13

Per contra, learned AGA opposed the prayer for bail and submits that in the FIR as well as in both the statements of the victim recorded under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. there is allegation of sexual exploitation against the applicant but he could not dispute the fact that victim of the case is major and FIR of the present case was lodged after about two years and during investigation no indecent videos of the victim could be recovered by Investigating Officer.

¶14

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

¶15

Although victim in the FIR as well as in both the statements recorded under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. made allegation of rape against the applicant and stated that under false promise of marriage he sexually exploited her but FIR of the present case was lodged after two years and admittedly victim is a major girl.

¶16

Further, although there is allegation that applicant also posted indecent videos of the informant, i.e., victim of the case, on social media but during investigation no such videos could be recovered by Investigating Officer.

¶17

Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case discussed above, in my view, applicant is entitled to be released on bail.

¶18

Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the instant bail application is allowed.

¶19

Let the applicant- Radhey Shyam be released on bail in the aforesaid case on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:-

¶20

(i) The applicant shall appear before the trial court on the dates fixed, unless his personal presence is exempted.

¶21

(ii) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly, make 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 any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶22

(iii) The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal and antisocial activity.

¶23

In case of breach of any of the above condition, the prosecution will be at liberty to move an application before this Court for cancellation of the bail of the applicant.

¶24

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.

¶25

Order Date :- 4.7.2023

¶26

SKM

¶27

Digitally signed by :- SHRAVANA KUMAR MISHRA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Radhey Shyam v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Radhey Shyam 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Asgar Vs State of U.P.

Joginder Alias Andahwa Vs State of U.P.

Arjun Vs State of U.P.

Digvijay Yadav Vs State of U.P.

Suraj @ Ballu Vs State of U.P.

Meetesh @ Neetesh Vs State of U.P. and Another