Allowed

Vijay Yadav v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, U.P. Lko.

Allahabad HC5 Jan 2024BAIL/96/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court allowed a bail application for an applicant accused under sections 366, 376, and 506 IPC. Granting bail despite the victim's Section 164 Cr.P.C. statement due to significant variance with the earlier Section 161 statement and the applicant's clean record, without expressing an opinion on the merits of the allegations.

What did the court decide?

Released on bail on personal bond and two sureties of Rs. 20,000 each with conditions to attend hearings, not commit similar offenses, and not tamper with evidence.

Vijay Yadav vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home… — Cheating and Forgery | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:30221

¶2

Court No. - 12

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 96 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Vijay Yadav Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, U.P. Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Shailesh Kumar Pathak,Anju Tripathi,Saurabh Pathak

¶5

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶6

Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned A.G.A. and perused the record.

¶8

In terms of the F.I.R. lodged as a missing person report, it was alleged that the daughter of the informant was enticed away by the applicant. Subsequently, in the statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C., the victim stated that as she was unhappy with her parents as such she has gone on her own to Lucknow where she met the applicant. Nothing wrong was stated against the applicant. However, in the statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C., for the first time it was stated that physical relations were made against the consent of the victim.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicant argued that in the statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C., the victim did not support the prosecution story. However, for the first time, in the statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C., the victim has stated that the physical relations were formed by the applicant against her consent. The victim refused to undergo medical examination. The age of the victim is around 20 years. The applicant is in jail since 15.11.2022 having no criminal history, hence the applicant may be enlarged on bail.

¶10

Learned A.G.A. also opposed the prayer for bail.

¶11

Considering the variance in the two statements of the victim recorded under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. coupled with the fact that the

¶12

applicant has no criminal antecedents and is in custody since 15.11.2022 and there is nothing on record to demonstrate that the applicant if enlarged on bail, would in any way adversely affect the trial and without expressing any opinion on merit, I am of the view that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail.

¶13

Accordingly, the bail application is allowed.

¶14

Let the applicant Vijay Yadav be released on bail in FIR/ Case Crime No.223 of 2022, under Sections 366, 376 and 506 I.P.C., Police Station Haiderganj, District Ayodhya on his furnishing personal bonds and two reliable sureties of Rs.20,000/- each to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions :-

¶15

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

¶16

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

¶17

(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.

¶18

Order Date :- 16.4.2024

¶19

Shukla

¶20

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

Vijay Yadav v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, U.P. Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vijay Yadav v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. 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

Islam @ Munna Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Civil Sectt. Lko

Ram Bhajan Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home, Lko.

Akash Rawat Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Sectt. Lko and Others

Chhote Lal Lodhi Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home Lko. and 3 Others

Hajari Kuldeep Alias Hajari Kureel Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Govt. U.P. Lucknow and 3 Others

Shivam Shukla Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Civil Sectt. Lko