Allowed

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

Allahabad HC3 Dec 2024BAIL/12340/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Allahabad High Court allowed a bail application filed by Raju Yadav accused under Sections 376, 452, 354, and 506 IPC. The court noted family rivalry, the prosecutrix's improved prosecution story, and granted bail with strict conditions regarding bail usage and court attendance.

What did the court decide?

Release of applicant on bail with personal bond and two sureties, subject to specific conditions regarding court attendance and travel.

Raju Yadav Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy… — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:80007

¶2

Court No. - 11

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 12340 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Raju Yadav Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Sectt. Lko And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Shanker Lal Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.

¶6

Heard Sri Shanker Lal Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Harishankar Maurya, learned AGA for the State.

¶7

Learned counsel for the applicant has filed application for correction and deletion of opposite party no.2, the same is taken on record.

¶8

On due consideration, the application is allowed.

¶9

Let opposite party no.2 be deleted from the array of opposite parties during the course of the day.

¶10

As per learned counsel for the applicant, the present applicant is in jail since 09.09.2024 in Case Crime No.191 of 2024, under Sections 376, 452, 354 & 506 IPC, Police Station – Patti, District – Pratapgarh.

¶11

Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the present applicant has been falsely implicated in the case as he has not committed any offence as alleged. Attention has been drawn towards Annexure No.8 of the application, which is an earlier FIR lodged against the present applicant by the mother of the prosecutrix pursuant to the application being filed under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. The aforesaid FIR was lodged on 08.03.2022 for the incident dated 07.10.2020. After that, application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. was filed on 18.01.2022 but since the prosecution story was based on surmises and conjectures and no evidence was available against the present applicant, therefore, final report was filed in that case. Thereafter, the prosecutrix filed another application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. against the present applicant but after some time, she withdrew the same. Again the impugned FIR has been lodged but such FIR has been lodged under Sections

¶12

452, 354 & 506 IPC. While recording her statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C., she did not level any allegation against the present applicant regarding rape. However, she improved the prosecution story in her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. The prosecutrix denied for medical examination. Learned counsel has also stated that the present applicant is a married person and the prosecutrix is also a married person but having ulterior motive in her mind, she implicated the present applicant. There is rivalry between the families, therefore, false FIRs/ complaints are being lodged against the present applicant. Charge sheet has been filed. Further, the applicant undertakes that if he is released on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail and shall abide by all terms and conditions of the bail order and shall cooperate in the trial proceedings.

¶13

Learned A.G.A. has, however, opposed the prayer for bail but he could not dispute the aforesaid submissions of learned counsel for the applicant.

¶14

Without entering into merits of the issue; considering the arguments of learned counsel for the parties; contents and allegations of the FIR; it appears that there is rivalry between the families, therefore, various FIRs/ complaints have been lodged against the present applicant; initially, the impugned FIR has been lodged under Sections 452, 354 & 506 IPC and while recording her statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C., the prosecutrix did not level any allegation against the applicant regarding rape, but she improved the prosecution story in her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C.; the applicant and the prosecutrix are married persons but it appears that having ulterior motive in her mind, the prosecutrix implicated the present applicant and undertaking of the applicant that he shall cooperate in the trial proceedings and shall not misuse the liberty of bail, I find it appropriate to release the applicant on bail.

¶15

Accordingly, the bail application is allowed .

¶16

Let applicant- Raju Yadav be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:-

¶17

(i) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall 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.

¶18

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

¶19

(iii) In case, the applicant 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 applicant 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.

¶20

(iv) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. If in the opinion of the trial court absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufficient 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.

¶21

(v) The applicant shall not leave India without previous permission of the court.

¶22

[Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.]

¶23

Order Date :- 3.12.2024 RBS/-

¶24

Digitally signed by :- RAM BIR SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

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

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

Rama Shankar @ Pappu Rajbhar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin.Secy. Home

Shafi Ahmad and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko and 3 Others

Aman Yadav Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Lko

Chandra Bhushan Shukla and 8 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Med. and Health Deptt. Lko. and 3 Others

Alok Kumar vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko and 2 Others

Deepu vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko