Allowed

Sumit Yadav v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC1 Jul 2024/3578/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal bail application, the court allowed bail to the applicant despite allegations of sexual assault on a minor, noting the inordinate delay in lodging the FIR and the applicant's lack of prior criminal history, granting release upon furnishing bonds and sureties.

What did the court decide?

Allowed bail application and directed release of applicant Sumit Yadav on furnishing personal bonds and two reliable sureties of Rs.20,000/- each.

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

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:44780

¶2

Court No. - 12

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 3578 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Sumit Yadav Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And 3 Others

¶5

Counsel for Applicant :- Dev Mani Mishra,Mohd. Salman

¶6

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶7

Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J.

¶8

Heard learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned A.G.A. and perused the record. No one appears on behalf of the complainant despite service of notice.

¶9

2 . In terms of the FIR lodged on 19.07.2022, it was alleged that the daughter of the informant used to talk to the applicant for a substantial time and on the false pretext of marriage, formed physical relations with her against her consent. It was stated that on 10.07.2022 at about 10 PM the applicant called the victim for taking her to Mumbai and instead of taking her to Mumbai took her elsewhere and again formed physical relations with her. In the statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and 164 Cr.P.C. the said version was reiterated. In the statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C., the victim stated that on 10.07.2022, the applicant proposed to take her to Mumbai and instead to took her at home and formed physical relations with her. It was also stated that the mother of the applicant had promised that the applicant would marry her, however he refused to marry. The tentative age of the victim is around 16 years although there is no specific document to form any specific view with regard to the age of the victim.

¶10

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

¶11

4. Considering the inordinate delay in lodging the FIR without giving any plausible reason, a case for bail is made out particularly when the applicant is in custody since 16.08.2022 having no criminal history is enlarged on bail. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed .

¶12

5. Let the applicant Sumit Yadav be released on bail in FIR/ Case Crime No. 325 of 2022, under Sections 363, 376, 312 IPC and Section 3/4 POCSO Act, Police Station Kandhai, 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:

¶13

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

¶14

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

¶15

(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.

¶16

Order Date :- 1.7.2024 Arun

¶17

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

Sumit Yadav v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sumit Yadav v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 3 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

Similar cases

Farooq Ali Alias Sheboo vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 3 Others

Chaman @ Lala vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home U.P. Lko. and 3 Others

Umesh vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lucknow

Majhauwa Sumal Sardar Ballabh Bhai Patel Higher Second.School Thru. Manager Ashok Kumar Tiwari vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy., Deptt. of Revenue, Lucknow and Others

Tribhuvan Kumar vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Chhotey vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko. and 3 Others