Allowed

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

Allahabad HC17 Aug 2023BAIL/59285/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Judicature at Allahabad disposed of a bail application filed by Rahul Yadav facing charges of child sexual abuse, voyeurism, and cheating. The court allowed bail without expressing an opinion on the merits, imposing strict conditions regarding court appearances.

What did the court decide?

Application allowed; released on bail on personal bond and two heavy local sureties subject to specific undertaking to appear in court and not seek adjournments.

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

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:165461

¶2

Court No. - 68

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 59285 of 2022

¶4

Applicant :- Rahul Yadav Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Rakesh Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Dr. Gautam Chowdhary,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A for the State, Sri Amit Kumar learned counsel for the High Court Legal Services Committee, High Court, Allahabad and perused the record.

¶7

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 the victim is aged about 19 years and in her statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. she has stated that the applicant had called her in his house and took her nude photograph and again after seven days, the same act was repeated near hut of the village and further threatened to viral the same on the facebook and similar version has been repeated in her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. Learned counsel further submits that perusal of the statements of the victim goes to show that the victim had gone to the applicant's house without any threat or coercion of the applicant, thus the victim is a consenting party. He further submits that there is nothing on record to demonstrate that any offence under Section 67 of Information Technology Act has been committed. Learned counsel has next argued that there is no evidence with regard to commission of rape,

¶8

since the medical report also not does not corroborate with the prosecution version. Several other submissions in order to 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 12.09.2022 having no criminal history.

¶9

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. In case the applicant is released on bail he will again indulge in similar activities and will misuse the liberty of bail.

¶10

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.

¶11

Let applicant Rahul Yadav involved in Case Crime No.216 of

¶12

2022 under Sections 376 (3), 354(घ ), 506 I.P.C., Section 3/4, 7/8 of POCSO Act and Section 67 of Information Technology Act, 2008 Police Station Dumariyaganj, District Siddharth Nagar, 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:-

¶13

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.

¶14

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.

¶15

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.

¶16

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.

¶17

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

¶18

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

¶19

Order Date :- 17.8.2023

¶20

S.Ali

¶21

Digitally signed by :- SHAUKAT ALI 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Machal Singh Alias Sandeep Vs State of U.P.

Vishal Vs State of U.P.

Arvind Kumar Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Mufeeda Vs State of U.P.

Rahmat Khan Vs State of U.P.

Kalu Khan @ Shariq Vs State of U.P.