Allowed¶14

Aman Yadav v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Lko

Allahabad HC2 Dec 2024/11704/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench; Rajesh Singh Chauhan, J.; Order Date 2.12.2024; Neutral Citation 2024:AHC-LKO:79821; CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. 11704 of 2024; Aman Yadav v. State of U.P.; bail under Sections 376, 504, 506 IPC; delayed FIR (incident 14.06.2024, FIR 26.08.2024); prosecutrix declined marriage on 18.11.2024; no prior criminal history; charge-sheet filed; bail allowed with conditions referencing S.229-A IPC, S.82 Cr.P.C., S.174-A IPC and S.313 Cr.P.C.

What did the court decide?

Applicant Aman Yadav to be released on bail in Case Crime No. 364 of 2024 on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount, subject to conditions (i)-(iv) relating to attendance, non-adjournment and penal consequences of misuse of bail liberty. ¶14

Aman Yadav Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Lko — Allahabad HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶14

Issue for consideration

Whether the applicant, Aman Yadav, in custody since 30.08.2024 in Case Crime No. 364 of 2024 under Sections 376, 504 and 506 IPC, ought to be released on bail.

¶12

Court's answer

Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court found it a fit case for bail.

¶12

Ratio / Principle

The bail application is allowed; the applicant is to be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount, subject to four conditions: (i) undertaking not to seek adjournments when witnesses are present; (ii) presence before the trial court on each date, failing which proceedings under Section 229-A IPC may follow; (iii) if liberty is misused and proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued and he fails to appear, proceedings under Section 174-A IPC; and (iv) personal presence at opening of the case, framing of charge and recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C.

¶14

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bail allowed - Aman Yadav, in custody since 30.08.2024 in Case Crime No. 364 of 2024 under Sections 376, 504 and 506 IPC, P.S. Inayat Nagar, District Ayodhya/Faizabad - FIR lodged on 26.08.2024 for incident of 14.06.2024; defence pleaded false implication, consensual relationship and unexplained delay - prosecutrix appeared on 18.11.2024 (pursuant to order dated 08.11.2024) and stated she was not willing to marry the applicant - medical examination submitted not to support prosecution version - no prior criminal history; charge-sheet filed - State (AGA) opposed but did not dispute submissions - bail granted without expressing opinion on merits, on personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount, with conditions including presence before the trial court and consequences under S.229-A and S.174-A IPC and S.82 Cr.P.C. for absence/misuse, and personal appearance at framing of charge and S.313 Cr.P.C. statement.

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:79821

¶2

Court No. - 11

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 11704 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Aman Yadav Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Lko Counsel for Applicant :- Anil Kumar Tiwari Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.

¶6

Counter affidavit and rejoinder affidavit filed today are taken on record.

¶7

Heard Sri Anil Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Ashok Kumar Singh, learned AGA for the State.

¶8

The present applicant is in jail since 30.08.2024, in case crime no. 364 of 2024, under Sections 376, 504 and 506 of IPC at Police Station Inayat Nagar District Ayodhya/Faizabad.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that the present applicant has been falsely implicated and he has not committed any offence as alleged. Attention has been drawn towards the impugned FIR, wherein, the date of incident has been indicated as 14.06.2024 but the FIR has been lodged on 26.08.2024 without explaining the aforesaid inordinate delay. The learned counsel has shown some colored photographs of the prosecutrix and the applicant which has been fled with the petition to show the intimacy of the relation. In compliance of the order dated 08.11.2024, the prosecutrix appeared before the court on 18.11.2024 and on that date she stated that she is not willing to get married with the applicant. The learned counsel for the applicant has stated that since the relation of the applicant with the prosecutrix was consensual and the prosecutrix did not oppose for those relations, therefore, the allegations of the impugned First Information Report are false. The learned counsel has further submitted that the medical examination has not supported the prosecution version for the reason that they were in physical relation for couple of months. The present applicant is having no prior criminal history of any kind, whatsoever and the charge-sheet has been filed. The learned counsel has further submitted that if the applicant is released on bail, he shall shall cooperate in the trial proceedings and shall not misuse the liberty of bail. Further, the applicant shall abide by all terms and conditions of the bail order, the applicant may

¶10

be enlarged on bail.

¶11

Learned Additional Government Advocate has, however, opposed the prayer for bail but he has not disputed the aforesaid submission of learned counsel for the applicant.

¶12

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, perusing the material available on record, arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, I find it a fit case for bail.

¶13

The bail application is allowed .

¶14

Let the applicant- Aman Yadav, be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:-

¶15

(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.

¶16

(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.

¶17

(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 applicants fail 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.

¶18

(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.

¶19

Order Date :- 2.12.2024 Anurag

¶20

Digitally signed by :- ANURAG SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Aman Yadav v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Lko

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Aman Yadav v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Lko

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Noor Jahan Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Lko.

Pravesh Kumar Pal @ Solger Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home. Lko and 4 Others

Prabhat Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. and Another

Mayank Shukla vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Akhilesh Shukla Alias Puttan vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Civil Sectt. U.P. Lko.

Rajkumari vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and 3 Others