Allowed

Vimal Yadav v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC8 Feb 2023BAIL/5530/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the first bail application of Vimal Yadav, a retired army person. The court noted the FIR was delayed, no video clip was recovered, and the applicant had no criminal history. A personal bond and two sureties were ordered along with strict conditions for trial attendance.

What did the court decide?

Accused released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties with conditions on trial attendance and no adjournments.

Vimal Yadav Vs State of U.P. and Another — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Court No. - 81

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 5530 of 2021

¶3

Applicant :- Vimal Yadav Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Manoj Nigam,Amit Kumar Srivastava,Chandra Dutt,Manish Dwivedi,Ram Kishor Gupta Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Shiv Shankar Kaithal

¶4

Hon'ble Mrs. Saroj Yadav,J.

¶5

Heard Mr. Amit Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the accused/applicant, Mr. Shiv Shankar Kaithal, learned counsel for the complainant and learned brief holder for the State-respondent and perused the material available on record.

¶6

This is the first bail application filed on behalf of the accused/applicant. Learned counsel for accused/applicant submitted that accused/applicant is a retired army person, he has been implicated in the crime falsely for the reason that he got retiral benefits after the retirement and purchased a truck on loan and that truck was given by him on rent to one Shadab. Shadab did not pay rent and when a demand was put by the accused/applicant he hatched a conspiracy and got lodged the FIR by the informant. He further submitted that no alleged video clip has been recovered by the Investigating Officer or presented before the Court. He further submitted that the alleged date of incident is 23.03.2020 and FIR was lodged on 27.09.2020 i.e. after a delay of about six months. The accused/applicant is languishing in jail since 27.09.2020. The accused/applicant has no criminal history, as stated in paragraph No.35 of the affidavit filed in support of the bail application. Hence, he may be enlarged on bail.

¶7

Learned A.G.A. for the State and learned private counsel for the complainant have opposed the bail application of the accused/applicant and submitted that victim has supported the version of the FIR, in her statements recorded under Sections 161 and 164 of Cr.P.C.. Hence the bail application should be rejected.

¶8

Considered the rival submissions and perused the material available on record.

¶9

It transpires from the record that accused/applicant is a retired army person and he is languishing in jail since 27.09.2020.

¶10

Admittedly no video clip as alleged in the FIR has been recovered or taken into custody by the Investigating Officer. FIR has been lodged after a delay of about six months.

¶11

Considering all the facts and circumstances of the case and also considering the period of incarceration, without commenting on merit of the case, it appears just to enlarge the accused applicant on bail.

¶12

Accordingly, the bail application filed on behalf of applicant is allowed.

¶13

Let the applicant Vimal Yadav involved in Case Crime No. 460 of 2020, Under Sections 376(3), 506 of I.P.C., Section 3/4(2), 11/12, 14 of POCSO Act, Section 3(2)(V) SC/ST Act and Section 66E/67-b I.T. Act, Police Station Ghatampur, District Kanpur Nagar be released on bail on her furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions;

¶14

(i) 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.

¶15

(ii) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶16

(iii) 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.

¶17

(iv) 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.

¶18

(v)The party shall file computer generated copy of such order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad.

¶19

(vi) The computer generated copy of such order shall be self attested by the counsel of the party concerned.

¶20

(vii) The concerned Court/Authority/Official shall verify the authenticity of such computerized copy of the order from the official website of High Court Allahabad and shall make a declaration of such verification in writing.

¶21

(Mrs. Saroj Yadav, J.)

¶22

Order Date :- 8.2.2023 A. K. Singh

¶23

Digitally signed by :- ASHISH KUMAR SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Vimal Yadav v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vimal Yadav v. State of U.P. and Another

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

Chitranjan Kumar Sharma @ Chetan Vs State of U.P.

Nahna@ Kishan Vs State of U.P.

Abhay Kushwaha @ Pushpendra Vs State of U.P.

Ram Autar Vs State of U.P.

Brahm Singh Vs State of U.P.

Mofil Vs State of U.P.