Allowed

Arvind Kumar Yadav v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Deptt. Lko and 2 Others

Allahabad HC24 Jan 2024/208/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Allahabad High Court allowed an appeal to quash bail rejection orders in an SC/ST Act case. Finding that the victim and her mother did not support the prosecution version during deposition, the court set aside the orders and directed the release of the appellant on bail under specific conditions.

What did the court decide?

Impugned orders dated 08.08.2022 and 14.12.2023 set aside; appellant released on bail with personal bond and two sureties.

Arvind Kumar Yadav Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief… — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:7335

¶2

Court No. - 13

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 208 of 2024

¶4

Appellant :- Arvind Kumar Yadav Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Deptt. Lko And 2 Others Counsel for Appellant :- Gyanendra Singh Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Rajeev Singh,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶7

The present appeal has been filed for quashing the orders dated 08.08.2022 & 14.12.2023 passed by the learned Special Judge, Exclusive Special Court, SC/ST Act, District- Pratapgarh in Special Case No. 401/ 2022 (State vs. Arvind Kumar Yadav) pertaining to F.I.R. No. 498/2021 under Sections 363, 366 I.P.C., Section 3(2)(v), 3(2)(va), 3(1)dha of SC/ST Act, Police Station- Antu, District- Pratapgarh; for releasing the appellant on bail in the aforesaid case crime.

¶8

Learned A.G.A. informs that notice has already been served to mother of victim as well as victim but none appears on their behalf.

¶9

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that F.I.R. of the case in question was lodged by father of victim. He further submits that victim was in affair with appellant and they entered into marriage, thereafter, she joined the company of appellant and went to Delhi. He further submits that victim and appellant moved to Surat and stayed there. He further submits that during the course of investigation, statements of victim were recorded U/s 161 & 164 Cr.P.C. and charge-sheet was submitted by Investigating Officer in the most mechanical manner without examining the site, i.e., Surat as well as Delhi where they stayed. He further submits that during the course of trial, victim was examined as P.W.- 2; in her deposition at the time of cross examination, she categorically stated that she joined the company of appellant at her own wish and before going to Delhi, they entered into marriage at Ma Belha Devi Temple on 28.11.2021 and the alleged photographs taken at the time of solemnizing marriage with appellant were hers. He further submits that P.W.- 3 (mother of victim) denied the prosecution story in her cross examination and stated that as victim entered

¶10

into marriage with appellant, her husband lodged the F.I.R. He further submits that and appellant is in jail since 07.04.2022, he does not have any criminal antecedent, hence, he may be enlarged on bail.

¶11

Learned A.G.A. opposes the prayer of appellant, but he does not dispute the fact that victim as well as her mother did not support the prosecution version in her deposition.

¶12

Considering the submissions of learned counsel for the appellant, learned A.G.A. and going through the contents of appeal, impugned order, depositions of victim as well as her mother as P.W.- 2 and P.W.- 3; it is evident that victim as well as her mother did not support the prosecution version in her deposition. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the impugned order is liable to be set aside and appellant is entitled to be released on bail.

¶13

Resultantly, in view of the above facts and circumstances of the case and the fact that the trial of the case is not likely to be concluded in near future, hence, the appeal has substance and it is accordingly allowed and the orders dated 08.08.2022 & 14.12.2023 passed by the learned Special Judge, Exclusive Special Court, SC/ST Act, District- Pratapgarh are hereby set aside.

¶14

Let the appellant- Arvind Kumar Yadav involved in the aforementioned 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:-

¶15

(i) The appellant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he will 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 appellant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through their 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 appellant 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 appellant 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

¶18

law, under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶19

(iv) The appellant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. If in the opinion of the trial court absence of the appellant 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.

¶20

Office is directed to communicate this order to the trial court, forthwith.

¶21

Order Date :- 24.1.2024 Arpan

¶22

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

Arvind Kumar Yadav v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Deptt. Lko and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Arvind Kumar Yadav v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Deptt. Lko and 2 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

Amit Dwivedi vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Maulik Saraswat (Minor Corpus) Thru. His Mother Smt. Swati Sharma vs State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Secrt. Lko. and 4 Others

Dhananjay Kumar Patra vs State of U.P. and Another

Shiv Giri Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Secrett. Lko. and Another

Satya Narayan Verma Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home, Lko. and Another

Jahaji @ Amarchandra and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another