Akhilesh Yadav Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:80402

Court No. - 16

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 2859 of 2024

Appellant :- Akhilesh Yadav Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. And Another Counsel for Appellant :- Kshitij Singh,Mahendra Pratap Singh,Sushil Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.

¶6

Rejoinder Affidavit filed by learned counsel for the appellant is taken on record.

¶7

Although notice to the informant has been served, none appears for the informant.

¶8

Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned A.G.A. appearing for the State as well as perused the record.

¶9

This criminal appeal has been filed by the appellant under Section 14A(2) the Schedule Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 against the judgment and order dated 6.8.2024 passed by Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Raebareli in Case Crime No.329 of 2024, under Section 333, 64, 351(3) BNS and Section 3(2)(5) S.C./S.T. Act, Police Station Mill Area, District Raebareli.

¶10

It is alleged in the prosecution case that on 30.6.2024 (Sunday) while the husband of the victim went to attend the invitation at 2 O'clock in night, the applicant Akhilesh Yadav came inside the house of the victim and on pointing the knife has raped the victim.

¶11

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the statements of the victim under Section 180 BNSS and 183 BNSS are at variance. He submits that the victim is a consenting party. Statement of the two children of the victim, who were eye witness of the incident, has not been taken by the Investigating Officer. In the medical examination no corroborative material has been found. The applicant has no criminal antecedents. He has been falsely implicated only because the victim was seen with the applicant by her husband, mother-in-law and brotherin-law.

¶12

It is further submitted that the appellant is languishing in jail since 2.7.2024. There is no likelihood that the appellant-applicant after release on bail may flee from the process of law or will misuse the liberty of bail granted by this Court.

¶13

Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail, but could not dispute the factual submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant-applicant.

¶14

On due consideration to the varied statements of the victim under Section 180 BNSS and 183 BNSS, lack of corroborative evidence, medical examination of the victim and the fact that the applicant has no criminal antecedents, eye witnesses have not been interrogated by the Investigating Officer and without commenting upon merits of the case, I am of the view that the learned court below has failed to appreciate the material available on record. In view of above, the order passed by the court below is liable to be set aside.

¶15

Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and the the judgment and order dated 6.8.2024 passed by Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Raebareli in Case Crime No.329 of 2024, under Section 333, 64, 351(3) BNS and Section 3(2)(5) S.C./S.T. Act, Police Station Mill Area, District Raebareli, is set aside.

¶16

Let the appellant-applicant Akhilesh Yadav involved in the aforesaid case be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions:-

¶17

(i) The appellant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.

¶18

(ii) The appellant will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness.

¶19

(iii) 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.

¶20

(iv) The appellant 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

¶21

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.

¶22

(v) The appellant 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.

¶23

(vi) In case, the appellant 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.

¶24

The pending application, if any, too stands disposed of.

¶25

Order Date :- 3.12.2024 Madhu D.R/P.S

¶26

Digitally signed by :- MADHU KUMARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Syed Zamin Abbas Rizvi @ Yameen Vs State of Up. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Manoj Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home Lko. and Another

Anil Kumar Singh Vs State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Keshav Chandra Vs State of U.P. and Ors.

Mukesh Kumar Vs the State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Sectt. Lko.

Shahid @ Kallan @ Shahid Ali Sekh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home Civil Secy. U.P. Lko. and Another