Allowed

Jitendra Yadav @ Monu v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home and Others

Allahabad HC3 Jul 2024/203/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Allahabad High Court allowed a bail application in a POCSO sexual assault and cheating case. The court found allegations uncorroborated by medical evidence or specific details. Convicted in absentia, the applicant was released on personal bonds and surety.

What did the court decide?

Released on bail with personal bonds and two sureties of Rs. 20,000 each.

Jitendra Yadav @ Monu Vs State of U.P. Thru… — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:45224

¶2

Court No. - 12

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 203 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Jitendra Yadav @ Monu Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home And Others Counsel for Applicant :- Praveen Kumar Tripathi,Gyan Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Bipin Kumar Tiwari

¶5

Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J.

¶6

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

¶7

No one appears on behalf of the respondent no.4 despite service of notice.

¶8

Counter afÏdavit filed on behalf of the respondent State is taken on record.

¶9

In terms of the F.I.R., initially a missing person report was lodged alleging therein that the daughter of the informant aged about 17 years had gone out and was missing. Subsequently, in the statements under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C., the victim stated that the applicant was having an affair with the mother of the victim and also used to physically harass her and as such she had left her home on 28.4.2022.

¶10

Learned counsel for the applicant argued that with regard to the allegations levelled against the applicant, there is no corroboration either by the medical or even date, time and place have not been specified.

¶11

Learned counsel for the applicant informed at the bar that the victim had married the person with whom she had eloped and living separately. The applicant has no criminal history and is in jail since 26.5.2023, hence the applicant may be enlarged on bail.

¶12

Learned A.G.A. also opposed the prayer for bail.

¶13

Considering the fact that there is no corroboration of the allegation against the applicant either by the medical or by the date,

¶14

time and place of the incident coupled with the fact that the applicant is languishing in jail since 26.5.2023 having no criminal history, and there is nothing on record to demonstrate that the applicant if enlarged on bail, would in any way adversely affect the trial and without expressing any opinion on merit, I am of the view that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail.

¶15

Accordingly, the bail application is allowed.

¶16

Let the applicant Jitendra Yadav @ Monu be released on bail in FIR/ Case Crime No.147 of 2022, under Sections 376 (3), 506 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of the POCSO Act, Police Station Kunda, District Pratapgarh on his furnishing personal bonds and two reliable sureties of Rs.20,000/- each to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions :-

¶17

(a) The applicant shall execute a bond to undertake to attend the hearings;

¶18

(b) The applicant shall not commit any offence similar to the offence of which he is accused or suspected of the commission; and

¶19

(c) 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 Court or to any police ofÏcer or tamper with the evidence.

¶20

Order Date :- 3.7.2024/Shukla

¶21

Digitally signed by :- ASHUTOSH KUMAR SHUKLA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Jitendra Yadav @ Monu v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jitendra Yadav @ Monu v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home and 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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Rakesh Kumar @ Kallu Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 3 Others

Radheshyam @ Kariya Vs State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Civil Secrt. Lko. and 3 Others

Vikas Yadav Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Sunil Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lucknow

Brijesh Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home, Lko.

Niranjan @ Niranjan Thakur Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Lko. and Others