Virendra Yadav Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home and Another

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:14501

Court No. - 13 Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 488 of 2023 Appellant :- Virendra Yadav Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home And Another Counsel for Appellant :- Shishir Pradhan Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶3

Hon'ble Rajeev Singh,J.

¶4

Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶5

It is evident from the record that the notice has already been served on private respondent no. 2, but none has put in appearance on his behalf and, therefore, the present case is being decided with the assistance of learned counsel for the appellant and learned A.G.A. 3. This criminal appeal has been filed under Sections 14A(2) of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 against order dated 12.01.2023 passed by Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Raebareli in Bail Application No. 3934 of 2022 arising out of Case Crime No. 222 of 2022 under Sections 376, 506 I.P.C., Section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST Act, Police Station Gadaganj, District Raebareli.

¶6

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant has falsely been implicated in the present case. It is further submitted that the victim as well as appellant, who were major at the time of alleged incident, were in love relation. It is also submitted that later on, victim started blackmailing the appellant and when he refused to fulfil her demand, the F.I.R. was lodged on the basis of incorrect fact. It is also submitted that on 12th March, 2022, the marriage of the victim was solemnized and thereafter, vidai ceremony was performed on 13.03.2022. Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently submits that as per prosecution case, the incident was taken place on 18.03.2022, but on the said date, the victim was residing at the house of her in-laws and no such incident was taken place. Submission of the learned counsel for the appellant

¶7

is that all these facts were brought to the notice of the Investigating OfÏcer, but he failed to examine the aforesaid facts and filed the charge sheet in mechanical manner, only on the basis of statements of the victim recorded under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. It is next submitted that F.I.R. was lodged after about four months from the date of incident on the application moved under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., which was also moved after about one month from the date of incident. It is lastly submitted that the court below has not considered all these facts while rejecting the bail application and there is no possibility of conclusion of trial in near future. It is, thus, submitted that the impugned order is liable to be set aside and the appellant, who does not have any criminal antecedent and is in jail since 28.11.2022, is entitled for bail. It is also submitted that the appellant is ready to cooperate in the trial.

¶8

Learned A.G.A. opposes the prayer of the appellant and submits that the victim has supported the prosecution version in her statements recorded under Section 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. However, he does not dispute the fact that the F.I.R. was lodged after about four months by moving application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C.

¶9

Considering the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant, learned A.G.A., and going through the contents of the appeal, F.I.R., impugned order, statements of the victim recorded under Section 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. as well as other relevant documents, it is evident that the appellant and the victim, who were major at the time of incident, were in association. It is also evident that the F.I.R. was lodged after about four months from the date of incident.

¶10

In view of above facts and circumstances as also keeping in view the fact that the trial of the case is not likely to be concluded in near future, the appeal has substance and it is accordingly, allowed.

¶11

Impugned order dated 12.01.2023 passed by Special

¶12

Judge (SC/ST Act), Raebareli in Bail Application No. 3934 of 2022 arising out of Case Crime No. 222 of 2022 under Sections 376, 506 I.P.C., Section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST Act, Police Station Gadaganj, District Raebareli is hereby set aside.

¶13

Let appellant, Virendra Yadav be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on his furnishing personal bond and two reliable sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following additional conditions :-

¶14

(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.

¶15

(ii) The appellant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufÏcient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶16

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

¶17

(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 sufÏcient 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.

¶18

Order Date :- 19.2.2024 VKS

¶19

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

Virendra Yadav v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Virendra Yadav v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Yoonus Vs State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Secrt. Lko.

Mahanth Shashikant Das @ Golu Das Vs State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Ministry Home Affairs Govt. Civil Secrt. Lko.

Ajay Yadav Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Rakesh Kumar Kashyap @ Mohabi Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lucknow and Another

Sant Prasad and 2 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Rashid Ali and 3 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lucknow and Another