Allowed

Manish Kumar Yadav Alias Kolayi v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Allahabad HC8 Jan 2024/1254/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment allows a bail application filed by Manish Kumar Yadav in a rape and cyber-crime case. The court considered the length of incarceration, lack of criminal antecedents, and the nature of the allegations compared to a co-accused who had already been granted bail.

What did the court decide?

Applicant allowed bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties with conditions regarding tampering with evidence and appearing in court.

Manish Kumar Yadav Alias Kolayi Vs State of U.P. Thru… — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:1623

¶2

Court No. - 14

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 1254 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Manish Kumar Yadav Alias Kolayi Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Abhay Raj Singh,Amol Kumar Srivastava,Girdhari Lal Shukla Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Gurucharan Kashyap,Pushpendra Kumar Sharma

¶5

Hon'ble Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.

¶6

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

¶7

None appears for the complainant.

¶8

The present bail application has been filed by accused-applicant seeking bail in Case Crime No. 345 of 2022 under Section 376D, 323, 506 I.P.C. and Section 66E of I.T. Act, Police Station Lonikatra, District Barabanki.

¶9

It is alleged in the prosecution case that the sister of the informant was married on 20.5.2022. His sister was subjected to rape by the accused as well as co-accused persons. The accused persons took photographs of his sister and also made obscene acts, stripped her and badly beaten her. The accused persons used to send the objectionable photographs to his group and also made viral and were also sent to the in-laws of the victim.

¶10

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that perusal of the statements under Section 161

¶11

Cr.P.C. and Section 164 Cr.P.C. of the victim shows that the allegations are sweeping in nature and general. No time, date or specific instance has been given. He further submits that in the medical there is no injury corroborating the prosecution case. According to the medical the victim was found five weeks and six days pregnant. She was married on 20.5.2022. The medical has been conducted on 19.9.2022. The First Information Report has been lodged on 14.9.2022. The victim is major and 25 years old. He submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated. The chargesheet has been filed under Section 66E of the I.T. Act. He further submits that if the objectionable photographs of the victim has been sent to the inlaws then the same would have been recovered by the Investigating OfÏcer, however, there is no mention/material in the case diary to show that any such photographs were found by the Investigating OfÏcer. The applicant has no criminal antecedents. The applicant is languishing in jail since 15.11.2022.

¶12

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that coaccused Sachin @ Sibbu has been enlarged on bail vide order dated 8.1.2024 passed in CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. 1004 of 2023. He claims parity with the bail order of co-accused.

¶13

It is lastly submitted that there is no possibility of the applicant of fleeing away after being released from jail or tampering with the witnesses. In case the applicant is enlarged on bail, he shall not

¶14

misuse the liberty of bail.

¶15

Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail however from the case diary he could not show that any material so as to attract Section 66E of the I.T. Act has been procured by the Investigating OfÏcer.

¶16

On due consideration to the period of incarceration gone into by the applicant and the fact that the applicant has no criminal antecedents as also the medical report as also co-accused has been granted bail by this Court and without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, I find it to be a fit case for enlarging the applicant on bail.

¶17

Accordingly, bail application is allowed. Let the applicant involved in the aforesaid Case Crime be released on bail 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 which are being imposed in the interest of justice:-

¶18

(i) The applicant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.

¶19

(ii) The applicant will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness.

¶20

(iii) 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 him from disclosing such facts to the

¶21

Court or to any police ofÏcer or tamper with the evidence.

¶22

(iv) 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.

¶23

(v) 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 sufÏcient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶24

(vi) 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 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.

¶25

Order Date :- 8.1.2024

¶26

Madhu

¶27

Digitally signed by :- MADHU KUMARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Manish Kumar Yadav Alias Kolayi v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manish Kumar Yadav Alias Kolayi v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Arun Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin.Secy. Deptt. of Home and 3 Others

Mohd. Sohel Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Lko.

Ramveer Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Secrett. U.P. Lko.

Aamir Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin.Secy. Home

Mohd. Waseem Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko.

Sonu Hussain Alias Bakridi Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.