Allowed

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

Allahabad HC22 Apr 2024/644/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed an appeal against the rejection of bail. Finding that the trial court did not consider relevant factual aspects and Apex Court observations regarding false marriage allegations, the court set aside the impugned order and granted bail to the appellant with conditions and a deposit of Rs. 25,000.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 15.12.2023 set aside; appellant enlarged on bail on personal bond of Rs. 25,000 and two sureties.

Anoop Yadav Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko… — Caste Atrocities | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:31016

¶2

Court No. - 13

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 644 of 2024

¶4

Appellant :- Anoop Yadav Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And Another Counsel for Appellant :- Vinay Kumar Dubey,Vishal Kumar Yadav Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Neeraj Srivastava

¶5

Hon'ble Saurabh Lavania,J.

¶6

Case called out. Despite of service of notice as appears from the Vakalatnama of Sri Neeraj Kumar Srivastava learned Advocate, filed on behalf of the complainant as also annexure no. 5 to the counter affidavit filed by the State today, which is taken on record, no one has appeared on behalf of complainant. Learned A.G.A. is present.

¶7

This Court proceeded to hear the appeal on merits.

¶8

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

¶9

The present appeal has been filed under Section 14-A (2) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Act, 1989 against the impugned order dated 15.12.2023 passed by the Special Judge, (SC/ST Act)/ Additional District and Sessions Judge, Court No. 2, Unnao, in Bail Application No. 3699 of 2023 arising out of Case Crime No. 725 of 2023 under Sections 323/341/376/504/506 I.P.C. and 3(2)(v) of SC/ST Act, Police StationKotwali, District-Unnao.

¶10

While assailing the impugned order, under appeal, dated 15.12.2023, whereby the application seeking bail preferred by the appellant was rejected by the trial court, it is stated by counsel for the appellant that the appellant has been falsely implicated in the present case. He further submitted that it appears that allegations have been levelled in the FIR against the appellant and two others namely Munni Devi(mother of the appellant) and Anupam Yadav (brother of appellant), whose name has not been mentioned in the FIR, by the victim, aged about 44 years, to get the financial assistance provided by the State under the relevant statutory provisions.

¶11

Elaborating aforesaid, it is further submitted that there is major difference between the age of the appellant and age of the victim as appellant at relevant point of time was 26 years and victim as per her own admission was 44 years old and accordingly the allegations that the appellant made false promise of marriage is improbable.

¶12

He further submitted that despite the allegations made against the mother and brother of the appellant, the charge-sheet has been filed only against the appellant.

¶13

He also stated that from the aforesaid, it is apparent that FIR is totally false and concocted and has been lodged only for the purposes of getting financial assistance from the State.

¶14

He further submitted that even the case set up in the F.I.R. is not supported the by any medical evidence.

¶15

He also stated that as per the observations made by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Deepak Gulati vs. State of Haryana (2013) 7 SCC 675 ; Sonu @ Subhash Kumar vs. State of U.P. and Another (2021) 7 SCC; and Mandar Deepak Pawar vs. State of Maharashtra and Another 2022 SCC OnLine SC 2110, to attract the offence under Section 376 IPC, the allegation should be to the effect that promise to marry given was false at the inception and from the F.I.R., it reflects that the said contents in its true spirit are missing.

¶16

He lastly submitted that all the aforesaid aspects of the case were not considered by the trial court, as such, the present appeal is liable to be allowed and the impugned order may be set aside and the appellant be enlarged on bail.

¶17

Learned A.G.A. for the State opposed the prayer for bail, however, he could not dispute the aforesaid contention of counsel for the appellant

¶18

Considered the submissions advanced by the counsel for the appellant, learned A.G.A. for the State and all the relevant documents placed on record.

¶19

Upon due consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions of counsel for the appellant and learned A.G.A., F.I.R., impugned order, as also the observations made by Hon'ble Apex Court in the judgments, referred above, this Court is of the view that all the factual aspects of the case were not considered by the trial court in the light of the observations made in the judgments, referred above, while passing the order dated 15.12.2023. For these reasons, this Court finds that the present appeal is liable to be allowed. Accordingly, it is allowed.

¶20

Order dated 15.12.2023 passed by the Special Judge, (SC/ST Act)/ Additional District and Sessions Judge, Court No. 2, Unnao, in Bail Application No. 3699 of 2023 arising out of Case Crime No. 725 of 2023 under Sections 323/341/376/504/506 I.P.C. and 3(2)(v) of SC/ST Act, Police Station- Kotwali, District-Unnao, is hereby set aside.

¶21

Let appellant- Anoop Yadav be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on his furnishing personal bond of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand Only) and two reliable sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following additional conditions :-

¶22

(i) The appellant shall cooperate with the prosecution during trial.

¶23

(ii) The appellant shall not tamper with the evidence during trial.

¶24

(iii) The appellant shall not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witness(s).

¶25

(iv) The appellant shall not commit an offence.

¶26

(v) The appellant 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.

¶27

(vi) The appellant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through counsel.

¶28

(vii) The appellant shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court.

¶29

(viii) 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.

¶30

In case of default of above conditions, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law

¶31

As this order relates to enlargement of the appellant on bail, it is clarified that observation(s) made in this order shall have no bearing on the merits of the case and the trial court shall not be influenced by any observation(s) made in this order.

¶32

Order Date :- 22.4.2024 Jyoti/-

¶33

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

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Baburam Vs State of U.P. through Secretary (Home) Civil Secretariat Lucknow and Ors.

Imran @ Patalu Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Dharmendra Vaishya and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy./Prin. Secy. Home, Lko. and Another

Arjun Singh vs Union of India Thru. Intelligence Officer Directorate of Revenue Intelligence Zonal Unit, Lucknow

Amit Thakur @ Amit Kumar vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Anoop Yadav vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another