Allowed

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

Allahabad HC4 Apr 2023CRLA/3581/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a criminal appeal in a rape case under the SC/ST Act, setting aside an order that rejected the bail application. The court granted bail with conditions, noting discrepancies in victim statements and lack of specific accusation against the appellant.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order rejecting bail was set aside; the appellant was released on bail with a personal bond and two sureties subject to specific conditions.

Mahendra Yadav Vs State of U.P. and Another — Caste Atrocities | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Court No. - 50

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 3581 of 2021

¶3

Appellant :- Mahendra Yadav Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- Tripurari Pal,Rajendra Kumar Yadav,Ram Krishna Yadav Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned AGA for the State and perused the material placed on record.

¶6

As per the version of counter affidavit filed by learned AGA, notice has been duly served on respondent No.2 but none appeared on his behalf to press the appeal nor any counter affidavit has been filed.

¶7

Instant criminal appeal under Section 14-A(2) of SC/ST (P.A.) Act has been filed against the order dated 11.6.2021 passed by learned Additional District and Sessions Judge/Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Budaun in Bail Application No.1276 of 2021, in S.S.T. No.444 of 2021 (Mahendra Yadav vs. State), arising out of Case Crime No.51 of 2021, under Sections 376, 506 IPC, Section 66 of Information & Technology Act and Sections 3(2)(v) of SC/ST (PA) Act, Police Station- Dataganj, District- Budaun.

¶8

Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that according to the prosecution version, Smt. Sukhdevi, mother of the victim moved an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. before the Special Judge POCSO Act, Budaun, concerned wherein she has stated that her minor daughter, aged around 17 years, who is a student in High School, used to go to school by cycle. Some boys used to tease her on way and spoke to her by obscene indications and also blackmailed her. On 22.9.2020 at around 2:00 P.M., when she was on way to her home from school, the accused Mahendra and Umesh forcefully dragged her towards jungle and committed rape on her one by one. FIR was lodged on the orders of the court concerned at the police concerned. The victim supported the FIR version in her statement recorded under Sections 161 as well as 164 Cr.P.C. and made allegations of commission of rape against Umesh and Mahendra and also stated that photo and video was uploaded on facebook. However, in that photos and videos, she was wearing clothes.

¶9

Learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that the trial is under way and statement of victim and first informant has been recorded before the court concerned is filed alongwith supplementary affidavit wherein victim has stated that on the date of incident two unknown persons had dragged her from her cycle and committed rape on her one by one. When her co-villager Dharmveer and Munendra intervened and these persons escaped. She has narrated the incident to her mother. Her mother registered a case against Umesh and Mahendra on suggestion of the villagers. Her medico legal examination was conducted. The accused persons Umesh and other have not committed rape on her and they have not taken any obscene photo or video of her. She knows Umesh but she does not know Mahendra as he belongs to some other village. She stated that her statement before the Magistrate was based on the instructions of her mother. He lastly submitted that the date of birth of victim is 10.6.2001 in her academic record and accordingly, she had attained age of majority and consent on the date of incident. The learned court below has rejected the bail application of the appellant on insufficient grounds. The case of the appellant for the purpose of bail was not duly considered by learned court below.

¶10

Per contra, learned AGA opposed the bail application of the appellant and submitted that the victim has supported the FIR version in her statement under Sections 161 as well as 164 Cr.P.C. and in C.D. No.6, the Investigating Officer has stated that he had recovered the mobile phone of Umesh from his father, in which a photograph of Umesh and victim is uploaded and same was made viral to two friends of Umesh.

¶11

Considering the rival submissions of learned counsel for the parties, complicity of accused, nature of offence and the fact that the victim has not supported the prosecution version before the trial court and has not made any allegation or accusation against appellant, in my considered opinion, a case for bail is made out.

¶12

Accordingly, the appeal is hereby allowed. The impugned order dated 11.6.2021 rejecting the bail application of the appellant is hereby set aside.

¶13

Let the appellant- Mahendra Yadav be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on 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) That the appellant shall cooperate in the expeditious disposal of

¶15

the trial and shall regularly attend the court unless inevitable.

¶16

(ii) That the appellant 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 officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶17

(iii) That after his release, the appellant shall not involve in any criminal activity.

¶18

(iv) The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be verified by court concerned before the release of the appellant on bail.

¶19

It is made clear that in case of breach of any of the conditions mentioned above, court concerned will be at liberty to cancel the bail of the appellant.

¶20

It is also made clear that the observations made in this order are limited to the purpose of determination of this bail application and will in no way be construed as an expression on the merits of the case.

¶21

Order Date :- 4.4.2023 Kamarjahan

¶22

Digitally signed by :- KAMARJAHAN ANSARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mahendra 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

Sanjay Vs State of U.P. and Another

Shatrughan Sen Vs State of U.P. and Another

Mahtab Alam Vs State of U.P. and Another

Rehan Ali Vs State of U.P. and Another

Smt. Preeti Gupta Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Sujeet Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another