Allowed

Rajesh Yadav v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and Another

Allahabad HC5 Feb 2024/121/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Anticipatory bail application filed by Rajesh Yadav in a case involving allegations of rape. Court granted bail pending investigation relying on legal precedent.

What did the court decide?

Protection from arrest till submission of police report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. on furnishing personal bond of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties.

Rajesh Yadav Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt… — Anticipatory Bail | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:10547

¶2

Court No. - 15

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 121 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Rajesh Yadav Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Home Lko. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Neeraj Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Mohd. Faiz Alam Khan,J.

¶6

Shri Ashok Kumar Verma, Advocate has filed his vakalatnama/ power along with a short counter affidavit on behalf of the opposite party No.2/ informant/ victim and the same is taken on record.

¶7

Learned AGA informs that he has procured complete instructions in the matter including up-to-date case diary and the investigation is still going on in this case.

¶8

Heard learned counsel for the applicant; learned A.G.A. for the State as well as Shri Ashok Kumar Verma, learned counsel appearing for the opposite party No.2/ informant/ victim and perused the record.

¶9

The present application has been moved by the accusedapplicant- Rajesh Yadav in Case Crime No. 166 of 2022, under Sections 376, 354-A and 506 I.P.C., Police StationMaheshganj, District- Pratapgarh, with the prayer to enlarge him on anticipatory bail as he is apprehending arrest in the above-mentioned case.

¶10

Learned counsel for the applicant while pressing the anticipatory bail application submits that it is a case of false implication. In the F.I.R., which has been lodged by the victim herself, there is no whisper about the commission of rape, while the first information report has been lodged on a written application moved by her and also in her statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., she has not alleged any allegation with regard to commission of rape against the applicant, but after about two months of recording of the statement of the

¶11

victim under Section 161 Cr.P.C., her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. was recorded, wherein, for the very first time, she has alleged the allegation of commission of rape against the applicant, which is apparently an afterthought and could not be believed in the facts and circumstances of the case.

¶12

It is further submitted that allegations of rape, which have been levelled by the prosecutrix in her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. are also not finding any corroboration by any medical evidence as no injury etc., has been found on the private parts of the victim.

¶13

It is also submitted that applicant is ready to cooperate in the investigation and an application along with an affidavit was given by the victim before the Investigating Officer stating therein that no incident, as reported by her, has actually occurred, but the Investigating Officer is not paying heed on the same and making his all out efforts to arrest the applicant, while the allegations, as levelled in the first information report and in the statements of the prosecutrix, are not being corroborated.

¶14

It is further submitted that applicant is a respectable citizen of the locality and is having no criminal history. There is no apprehension that after being granted facility of anticipatory bail, applicant may flee from the course of law or may otherwise misuse the liberty, thus, protection from arrest be granted to him.

¶15

Learned A.G.A., on the other hand, opposes the prayer of anticipatory bail of the applicant.

¶16

Learned counsel appearing for the informant/ victim/ opposite party No.2 submits that compromise has already taken place between the parties and the incident appears to have been reported to the police by making aggravations and the prosecutrix/ victim is present in the Court and a short counter affidavit has also been prepared on her instructions wherein she specifically stated that she has also given an application along with an affidavit on 26.12.2022 to the SHO of Police StationMaheshganj, District- Pratapgarh, mentioning therein that no such incident had occurred. It is also submitted that the victim, who is present in the Court today, has given him instructions not to oppose the plea of anticipatory bail of the applicant.

¶17

Having heard learned counsels for the parties and having perused the record, it is reflected that in the first information report the allegations, which have been levelled against the applicant, are only to the tune of molestation/ outraging the modesty of the prosecutrix and the same is the position of the statement of the prosecutrix recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. However, it is in the statement of the prosecutrix recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. that she, for the very first time, alleged the allegations of rape and and this statement (under Section 164 Cr.P.C.) has been recorded after about two months of recording of her statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. Various submissions have been raised on behalf of the applicant in order to show that the time gap between the lodging of the F.I.R. and recording of the statement of the prosecutrix under Section 164 Cr.P.C., is sufficient to cook up a false story/ narrative. Though, it is submitted that the prosecutrix has not sustained any injury in the incident, but in the Medical Report of the prosecutrix, no injury appears to have been noticed on her private parts, but on his back, 10 cm. below scapula, a scratch healed mark has been noticed. The F.I.R. has been lodged with considerable delay. The applicant is not having any criminal antecedent and the victim, who is present in the Court today, has also stated that she and applicant have compromised the matter, however, it would be the prerogative of the appropriate Court to consider such compromise in right perspective, as this Court is only concerned with the liberty of the applicant viz a viz the material available against the applicant.

¶18

Thus, considering the facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sushila Aggarwal and Ors. Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) and Ors., MANU/SC/0100/2020 and Nathu Singh Vs. State of U.P. and Others:(2021) 6 SCC 64 , in the considered opinion of this Court, protection from arrest till conclusion of the investigation and submission of Police Report under Section 173 (2) Cr.P.C., may be granted to the applicant.

¶19

In result, the instant anticipatory bail application moved on behalf of the applicant- Rajesh Yadav is finally disposed of in terms that till the submission of police report, if any, under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. before the competent court in the event of arrest of the applicant- Rajesh Yadav, involved in aforesaid case crime number, he shall be released on anticipatory bail on

¶20

his furnishing a personal bond of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Station House Officer of the police station concerned/Investigating Officer/ Trial Court, concerned with the following conditions:-

¶21

(i) The applicant shall make himself available for interrogation or for discovery of any fact by a police officer/investigating officer as and when required and will cooperate in the investigation.

¶22

(ii) The applicant 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 them from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer;

¶23

(iii) The applicant shall not leave the India without the previous permission of the Court.

¶24

Order Date :- 5.2.2024 Gurpreet Singh

¶25

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

Rajesh Yadav v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajesh Yadav v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and Another

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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Izhar Ahmad and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Ajeet Kumar Gupta @ Ajeet Gupta Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lucknow

Mohd. Kaleem Shakoor and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy./Prin. Secy. (Home), Govt. of U.P. Lucknow and 2 Others

Pankaj Gupta Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 3 Others

Umesh Kumar Gaur @ Umesh Gaur and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home

Shiv Prasad Dubey @ Bablu Dubey Vs the State of U.P. Thru. Prin.Secy. Deptt. of Home