Allowed

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

Allahabad HC1 Mar 2023BAIL/55978/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed bail to the applicant in a case involving rape, abduction, and related offences, citing jail overcrowding, lack of criminal history, and the right to speedy trial under Article 21, without finally deciding the merits of the case.

What did the court decide?

Released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties, subject to conditions against tampering, adjournments, and absence.

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

¶1

Court No. - 73

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 55978 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Sonu Yadav Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Ran Vijay Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Mohd. Ashraf Abbasi

¶4

Hon'ble Siddharth,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Ran Vijay Singh, learned counsel for the applicant; Sri Mohd. Ashraf Abbasi, learned counsel for the informants and learned A.G.A for the State.

¶6

Short counter affidavit filed by counsel for the informant is taken on record.

¶7

There is allegation against the applicant of abduction of minor girl with intent to marry, commission of offence of rape, illegal confinement, offence of penetrative sexual assault and abetment of suicide.

¶8

Counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in this case. The deceased committed suicide in the home of her parents. Before the trial Court the father and mother of the victim has been examined. Both of them have been declared hostile. The applicant is in jail since 06.04.2022 and has no criminal history to his credit.

¶9

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

¶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 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 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

¶11

application is allowed.

¶12

Let the applicant, Sonu Yadav, involved in Case Crime No. 118 of 2022, under Sections- 363, 366, 376(3), 342, 306 IPC and Section 3/4 POCSO Act, Police Station- Chaubepur, District- Varanasi, 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

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

¶14

(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.

¶15

(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.

¶16

(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.

¶17

(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.

¶18

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

¶19

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

¶20

Trial court is directed to conclude the trial of the applicant as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of one year from the date of production of certified copy of this order.

¶21

Registrar (compliance) is directed to communicate this order to the trial Court for necessary compliance within a week.

¶22

Order Date :- 1.3.2023 Rohit

¶23

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

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sonu 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

Rohit and Another Vs State of U.P.

Ravindra Rana @ Tinku @ Pahalwan Vs State of U.P.

Vimal Vs State of U.P and 3 Others

Shekhar Vs State of U.P.

Rohit Vs State of U.P.

Vinay Kumar Alias Beenu Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others