Allowed

Kailash Yadav v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home U.P. Lko.

Allahabad HC11 Jan 2024BAIL/49/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court enlarged the applicant on bail in an FIR alleging rape under Section 376D IPC. The court held that the FIR version lacked corroborative medical evidence and that the applicant's antecedents showed he was named by relatives of the informant, making him entitled to bail.

What did the court decide?

Released on bail with a personal bond and two sureties of Rs.25,000/- each subject to specific conditions.

Kailash Yadav vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of… — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:3049

¶2

Court No. - 12

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 49 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Kailash Yadav Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Home U.P. Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Shiv Kumar Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J.

¶6

1. Supplementary affidavit filed today in Court is taken on record.

¶7

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

¶8

3. The applicant seeks enlargement on bail in FIR No.416 of 2023, under Section 376D, 506 IPC, P.S. Nanpara, District Bahraich.

¶9

4. In terms of the FIR registered through an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. on 27.07.2023, it was alleged that on 08.06.2023, the victim was going with her husband on a motorcycle and about 8:30 pm, four persons who were carrying arms stopped the motorcycle and after threatening with firearm, committed the offence of rape on the victim. The applicant was named in the FIR.

¶10

5. In the statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C., the FIR version was reiterated. However, in the statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C., it was alleged that the offence was committed by the applicant.

¶11

6. Learned counsel for the applicant draws my attention to the medical on record done on 09.06.2023 i.e. one day after the alleged incident which does not indicate or corroborate the FIR version and shows two contusions i.e. on the knee and on the arm. In the light of the said, he argues that the allegations have been levelled without any corroborative evidence whatsoever that too after one month of the alleged incident.

¶12

7. Learned AGA has opposed the bail application.

¶13

8. Considering the fact that the FIR version was not supported by material on record, particularly medical, coupled with the fact that the criminal antecedent of the applicant have been explained in the supplementary affidavit wherein in all the cases

¶14

the applicant has been named by brother-in-law of the informant and in one case by the bhabhi of the informant, the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail. In view thereof, the application is allowed.

¶15

9. Let the applicant Kailash Yadav be released on bail in aforesaid FIR number on his furnishing a personal bond with two sureties of Rs.25,000/- each to the satisfaction of court concerned with the following conditions:

¶16

(a) The applicant shall execute a bond to undertake to attend the hearings;

¶17

(b) The applicant shall not commit any offence similar to the offence of which he is accused or suspected of the commission; and

¶18

(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.

¶19

Order Date :- 11.1.2024 nishant

¶20

Digitally signed by :- NISHANT MOHAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Kailash Yadav v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home U.P. Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kailash Yadav v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home U.P. Lko.

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

Harshendra Singh @ Raja Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Lko.

Shyam Bihari @ Shyam Kishor Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko.

Brijesh Kumar Prajapati Vs the State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Deptt. Govt. Lko.

Satyapal Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko.

Kailash Yadav Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home U.P. Lko.

Rajendra Gupta Third Bail Vs State of U.P.