Allowed

Yogendra Pratap Singh @ Chhunna Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC20 Sept 2024BAIL/10000/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bail application under Section 376 IPC and POCSO Act for alleged rape, forced marriage of a minor and age falsification. Court noted delayed FIR, no medical evidence and parity with bailed co-accused; State counsel did not dispute parity.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail on personal bond and two sureties, with conditions not to tamper with evidence, pressurise witnesses, and appear on every trial date.

Yogendra Pratap Singh @ Chhunna Singh vs… — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:65332

¶2

Court No. - 19

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 10000 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Yogendra Pratap Singh @ Chhunna Singh Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. And 3 Others

¶5

Counsel for Applicant :- Neeraj Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶6

Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,J.

¶7

Heard Shri Neeraj Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, Shri Puneet Kumar Yadav, the learned State Counsel and Shri Anil Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the complainant.

¶8

By means of the instant application, the applicant is seeking his release on bail in Case Crime No.96 of 2019 under Section 376 IPC and 3/4 of the P.O.C.S.O. Act, 2012 registered at Police Station- Bara Sagwar, District- Unnao.

¶9

The aforesaid case has been registered on the basis of an FIR lodged on 19.5.2019 against five persons, including the applicant, in furtherance of an application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. filed on 20.08.2019, alleging that the applicantYogendra Pratap Singh had got a bank account opened in the informant's name and although her age was less, her job card was prepared. Three days prior to opening of the account, the applicant had raped the informant. Two years after the aforesaid incident, the applicant got the informant married against her wish with another co-accused Raju Singh and sent her with him when she was merely 16 years old. Co-accused Chunna Singh was village Pradhan and he used to threaten her.

¶10

The informant's mother had lodged a report of this incident and thereafter, the applicant had called her to his home where Ram Shakar alias Munshi committed rape with her. The applicant wrongfully got the informant's age mentioned in the Parivar Register increased and thereafter, the informant was set free. A Magistrate had directed her to live with Raju Singh but after she was released, the applicant- Yogendra Pratap Singh and Munshi took her with him and they kept her in the house of Pushpa, who has not been made an accused. The informant

¶11

alleged that while she was in the house of Pushpa, co-accused Pappu Singh @ Rajendra Singh also used to rape her. The informant has delivered two daughters due to her relation with co-accused Bhola.

¶12

In the affidavit filed in support of the application, it has been stated that the applicant is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in the present case. The applicant's involvement in six other cases has been disclosed in para-24 of the affidavit filed in support of the application and his involvement in three other cases has been disclosed in para-3 of the supplementary affidavit, in three of which he has been ordered to be released on bail and he has not been summoned in rest of the cases.

¶13

Four other co-accused persons namely, Raju Singh, Ram Shanker alias Munshi, Jai Prakash and Pappu singh alias Rajendra Singh have already been granted bail in the present case.

¶14

Learned State Counsel did not dispute contention of the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is also entitled to be released on bail on the ground of parity.

¶15

Learned counsel for the informant has vehemently opposed the bail application and he has submitted that the applicant wields great pressure on the authorities due to which the informant's date of birth was wrongly altered and the informant could not approach the police authorities. At the same time, the learned counsel for the informant submitted that the applicant is absconding for the past five years.

¶16

The aforesaid two submissions made by the learned counsel for the informant appears to be self-contradictory as in case the applicant is wielding such pressure on the authorities, he had no reason to be absconding and in case he is absconding, he could not have wielded pressure on the authorities.

¶17

Having considered the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view the fact that the FIR has been lodged after a long delay; that there is no medical evidence to support the allegations and that three co-accused persons have already been granted bail in the present case, I am of the view that the applicant is also entitled to be released on bail.

¶18

Accordingly, the bail application is allowed .

¶19

Let the applicant- Yogendra Pratap Singh @ Chhunna Singh be released on bail in the aforesaid case, on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of Magistrate/Court concerned, subject to the following conditions: -

¶20

(i) the applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence;

¶21

(ii) the applicant shall not pressurize the prosecution witnesses;

¶22

(iii) the applicant shall appear on each and every date fixed by the trial court.

¶23

(Subhash Vidyarthi,J.)

¶24

Order Date :- 20.9.2024 -Amit K-

¶25

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

Yogendra Pratap Singh @ Chhunna Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Yogendra Pratap Singh @ Chhunna Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. 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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Vijay Laxmi vs State of U.P. Thru. D.M. Sultanpur and 7 Others

Smt. Beena Tiwari and Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy., Revenue Deptt., Lucknow and Others

Smt. Pratima Gupta Vs the Addl. Prin. Judge -Viii, Family Court, Lko. and Another

Jagannath vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Kallu Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Home

Rahul @ Monu Tiwari vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko