Allowed

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

Allahabad HC2 Dec 2023BAIL/50359/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal bail application, the Allahabad High Court granted bail to the applicant, Rahul Yadav, charged with offences including abduction and rape under IPC and POCSO Act, citing the overcrowding in jails and need for a speedy trial without expressing an opinion on the merits.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail with personal bond and two sureties subject to conditions including cooperation in trial and no tampering with witnesses.

Rahul Yadav Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:228269

¶2

Court No. - 64

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 50359 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Rahul Yadav Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Mohd. Abrar Khan Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Siddharth,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A.

¶7

The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant, Rahul Yadav, with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No. 304 of 2023, under Sections 363,366,323,342,504,376 IPC and section 5/6 POCSO Act Police Station Saini, DistrictKaushambi, during pendency of trial.

¶8

There are allegations against the applicant of abduction of minor girl with intent to marry, commission of offences of rape, beating and unlawful confinement besides offences under section 5/6 POCSO Act.Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that as per ossification test report of the victim she is aged about 18-20 years.Therefore she is not minor. She willingly eloped with applicant and married him in the Arya Samaj Mandir, . Victim in her statement recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C., has neither made allegation of abduction nor rape against the applicant.Victim in her statement recorded after returning back under section 164 Cr.P.C. has made wild allegation against the applicant. The applicant is in jail since 29.8.2023 and has no criminal history.

¶9

Learned A.G.A. has 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

Order Date :- 2.12.2023

¶22

Atul kr. sri.

¶23

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

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rahul 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

Suraj Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Anil Prajapati Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Jishan Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Nilesh Patel Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Ishwar Tyagi Vs State of U.P.

Kuldeep Vs State of U.P.