Allowed

Vikram Yadav v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Others

Allahabad HC1 Aug 2024/2550/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court allowed the bail application of Vikram Yadav. Considering the victim's statement that she was not taken by force and the lack of visible injuries, the Court held that a prima facie case for bail was made out and released the applicant on personal bonds and two sureties.

What did the court decide?

Released on bail by furnishing personal bonds and two reliable sureties of Rs.20,000 each with conditions to attend hearings and not tamper with evidence.

Vikram Yadav Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:52769

¶2

Court No. - 12

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 2550 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Vikram Yadav Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. And Others Counsel for Applicant :- Ram Sahay Yadav,Garima Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶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

2 . In terms of the FIR registered on 01.06.2023, it was alleged that the daughter of the informant aged about 12 years, had gone out of home on 30.05.2023 at about 8 PM, on the way she met certain ladies and on the asking of the said ladies, the victim informed that the applicant at the custody of the daughter of the informant. The applicant had allegedly informed the said ladies that the applicant would take the victim and drop her home, however, the victim was not dropped and thus the allegations were leveled that the applicant along with the other co-accused had enticed away the daughter of the informant. In the statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C., the victim stated that around four days ago on 30.05.2023 at about 6.30 PM, the victim had gone along with the applicant as the applicant had allegedly told her that in case she does not come with him, he would take her anyway and would also take her sister. She also admitted knowing the applicant for the last one year. She also stated that there was an enmity in between her family member and the applicant. She also stated that the applicant had kept her at his elder sister's home for four days and wrong was also committed on her. In the

¶8

statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C., the victim reiterated the said version and admitted knowing the applicant for the last one year and she also denied that the applicant had taken her by use of force. The medical conducted on the victim on 03.06.2023, did not indicate any visible injury present at the time of examination. The tentative age of the victim as per the medical is around 15 years.

¶9

3. Learned A.G.A. opposed the bail prayer.

¶10

4. Considering the two statements of the victim recorded under Sections 161 & 164 Cr.P.C., where the victim admitted knowing the applicant for the last year and stating that she was not taken by the applicant by use of force coupled with the medical which does not corroborate any allegation of the offence under Section 376 IPC, prima facie, a case for bail is made out, the applicant who is in custody since 16.06.2023 and has no criminal history is enlarged on bail. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed .

¶11

5. Let the applicant Vikram Yadav be released on bail in FIR/ Case Crime No. 258 of 2023, under Sections 363, 366-A, 376 IPC, Section 3/4 POCSO Act and Section 3(2)V SC/ST Act, Police Station Kotwali Bhinga, District Shrawasti, 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:

¶12

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

¶13

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

¶14

(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

¶15

to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police ofÏcer or tamper with the evidence.

¶16

Order Date :- 1.8.2024 Arun

¶17

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

Vikram Yadav v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vikram Yadav v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. 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

Ram Prakash Pathak Alias Lal Maharaj Tantrik Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home, U.P. Lko.

Monu @ Mukaddar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lucknow and 3 Others

Rajendra Mangta Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko and 3 Others

Dinesh Maurya Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home and Others

Anupam Tiwari Alias Mohan Vs the State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Civil Secrtt. U.P. Govt. Lko.

Gafoor Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home, Lko.