Allowed

Bhaiyya Lal Yadav v. the State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home, Lko. and Others

Allahabad HC5 Aug 2024/4625/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Court allowed bail to an accused facing charges under sections 376 IPC, 3/4 POCSO Act, and 3(2)(v) SC/ST Act, citing prima-facie lack of evidence regarding non-consent and unrecorded victim statement.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on personal bond and two sureties of Rs.20,000 each, with conditions to attend hearings, not repeat offences, and not tamper with evidence.

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

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:53487

¶2

Court No. - 12

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 4625 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Bhaiyya Lal Yadav Opposite Party :- The State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Home, Lko. And Others Counsel for Applicant :- Mohammad Alam,Samrat Gupta Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J.

¶6

Supplementary Affidavit filed in court is taken on record.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA and perused the record.

¶8

The accused-applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No.233 of 2022 under sections 376 IPC and section 3/4 POCSO Act and section 3(2)(v) SC/ST Act, P.S. Nigoha, District Lucknow.

¶9

The FIR in question was lodged on 04.10.2022 alleging that the daughter of the informant aged about 14 years had gone out of home without informing anyone and while she was going, on the way she met the applicant who was a tempo driver and the applicant allegedly took the victim to his home and wrong was committed on her. In the statement under section 161 Cr.P.C., the victim stated that she had left her home without informing to anyone when she met the applicant on the way and she sat on the tempo and thereafter, he took her in his home and wrong was also committed. In the statement under section 164 Cr.P.C., she reiterated the said version, however she stated that after committing rape, the applicant had offered to pay her money and therefore she agreed for forming physical relations and thereafter once again the applicant committed wrong on her. The victim refused to undergo medical examination. There is no document to demonstrate or form any view with regard to the exact age of the victim and although in terms of the radiological examination, all the bones were found to be fused.

¶10

The counsel for the applicant draws my attention to the supplementary medical examination done on 12.10.2022 which has been filed along with the supplementary affidavit in which no injury was observed either on the internal or external part of the victim. It is essential to notice the statement of the wife of the applicant who stated that on the date in question, she had seen her husband along with the applicant chatting outside the home and thereafter an altercation took place in between the husband and the wife.

¶11

Considering the material on record, prima-facie there is no document to suggest that the physical relations were formed without her consent as is also evident from the statement of the wife of the applicant who did not notice any hue and cry form the victim or any suggestion of any resistance, as such, considering all these facts coupled with the fact that the applicant is in custody since 05.10.2022 and even the statement of the victim has not been recorded so far, the applicant is entitled for the bail. Thus the bail application is allowed.

¶12

Let the applicant Bhaiyya Lal Yadav be released on bail in aforesaid first information report number subject to his furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties of Rs.20,000/- (Twenty Thousand) each of the like amount 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 officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶16

Order Date :- 5.8.2024

¶17

VNP/-

¶18

Digitally signed by :- VISHVANATH PRASAD SHUKLA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Bhaiyya Lal Yadav v. the State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home, Lko. and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bhaiyya Lal Yadav v. the State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home, 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

Similar cases

Om Prakash Alias Prakash Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home

Pintu Gautam Vs State of U.P. Thru.Prin.Secy. Home and 4 Others

Mahendra Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Civil Secrett. Lko. and 3 Others

Riyaz Alias Khurchali Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Civil Sectt Lko.

Anjani Kumar @ Nankau Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko.

Manish Mandal Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 3 Others