Allowed

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

Allahabad HC1 Mar 2023BAIL/57643/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment allows bail for the applicant, Rajveer Yadav, charged with offences including kidnapping, abduction, rape under IPC and POCSO. The court noted the applicant is innocent, the victim is a consenting party, the first information report is contradictory, and the medical report does not corroborate injuries. Bail is granted subject to conditions.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail by furnishing a personal bond and two heavy local sureties subject to undertaking not to seek adjournments and remain present during trial.

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

¶1

Court No. - 79

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 57643 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Rajveer Yadav Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Rakesh Kumar Verma Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Dr. Gautam Chowdhary,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A for the State and perused the record.

¶6

The prosecution story in brief is that the informant's daughter was found to be missing on 18.02.2023 and he suspect that his daughter has been eloped by the applicant. It has been argued by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. He further submits that in the statement of the informant recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. the informant has admitted the fact that there was a love affair between the applicant and the victim. He next submits that the victim in her statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. has specifically stated that she is aged about 17 years and has solemnised marriage with the applicant and was living as husband and wife, whereas, the victim in her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. has made allegations against the applicant. It is thus contended that contradictory has been given by the victim. He next submits that as per medical report, neither there is any external or internal injury on any private parts and that the hymen is old torn. It is thus contended that even the medical report does not corroborate with the prosecution version, thus the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail. He next submits that the victim is a consenting party and therefore, no offence against the applicant is made out. Several other submissions in order to

¶7

demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against the applicant have also been placed before the Court. The circumstances which, according to the counsel, led to the false implication of the accused have also been mentioned. It has also been assured on behalf of the applicant that he is ready to cooperate with the process of law and shall faithfully make himself available before the court whenever required and is also ready to accept all the conditions which the Court may deem fit to impose upon him. He next submits that applicant is languishing in jail since 22.07.2022 having no criminal history. 3. Per contra, learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail of the applicant by contending that the innocence of the applicant cannot be adjudged at pre trial stage, therefore, he does not deserve any indulgence.

¶8

Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, submissions of learned counsel for the parties, nature of evidence, and all attending facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, this Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. Hence the bail application is allowed.

¶9

Let applicant Rajveer Yadav involved in Case Crime No.144 of 2022 under Sections 363, 366, 376 I.P.C., and Section 5M/6 of POCSO Act, Police Station Majhola, District Moradabad, be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two heavy local sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to the following conditions:-

¶10

I. 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 liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law.

¶11

II. The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on

¶12

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.

¶13

III. In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail 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.

¶14

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 default of this condition is deliberate or without sufficient 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.

¶15

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

¶16

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

¶17

Order Date :- 1.3.2023 S.Ali

¶18

Digitally signed by :- SHAUKAT ALI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajveer 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Arvind Vs State of U.P.

Pappu Chauhan Vs State of U.P.

Ramu Lodhi and Another Vs State of U.P.

Udham Singh Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Anikesh @ Ankesh Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Ahsan Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others