Guddu Alias Dharmendra Kumar Yadav Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Govt. of U.P. Lucknow and 3 Others

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:45072

Court No. - 12

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 2117 of 2024

Applicant :- Guddu Alias Dharmendra Kumar Yadav Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Govt. Of U.P. Lucknow And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Anil Kumar Sharma,Atul Verma,Hari Krishna Verma,Sanjeet Kumar Patel,Sanjeev Verma,Vishwa Nath Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Alok Kumar Dixit

¶5

Hon'ble Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.

¶6

1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State and perused the record.None appears for the complainant. The applicant's counsel has produced WhatsApp chat wherein learned counsel for the complainant has stated that he is not conducting this case.

¶7

2. It is alleged in the prosecution case that minor daughter of the complainant aged about 13 years studying in Class-IX went to her school on 8.8.2022 at about 7.00a.m.. In the afternoon when he went to take her from school, she was found missing. He was told that the named accused persons Nitin and Neeraj have enticed her away.

¶8

3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is in jail since 18.9.2022. Charge sheet has been filed. Till date, the complainant, victim as well as the scribe of the first information report could be examined. No other witness out of 27 has been examined. It is submitted that since November, 2024, till date, except scribe of the first information report, no other witness has been examined. The offence is of 8.8.2022.The victim has been recovered on 6.9.2022.

¶9

It is further submitted that the investigating officer on the same set of evidence has filed charge sheet against the applicant, co-

¶10

accused Ashiq aAi and Chhotu whereas on the same set of allegations has absolved two named accused persons Nitin and Neeraj as well as the co-accused Annu alias Anup and charge sheet has not been filed against them.

¶11

In the medico legal examination of the prosecutrix, no internal or external injury has been found. No opinion regarding rape has been given by doctor.

¶12

It is submitted that the statement of the victim right from recovery (GD No.47) does not inspire confidence. She in her statement under section 161 CrPC has developed altogether new version. Under section 164 CrPC, again, improvement has been made by her and the statement given by the victim under section 164 CrPC has been contradicted by Principal Smt. Bhagwati Bhandari. In the court also, the victim has given altogether a separate statement again making improvement and on a number of occasions, the victim has made improvement. There is a lack of corroborative evidence. The statement of the victim is not trustworthy.

¶13

It is further submitted that there is no possibility of the applicant of fleeing away after being released on bail or tampering with the witnesses. In case the applicant is enlarged on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶14

4. Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that the victim is 13 years old minor girl.

¶15

5. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the fact that the applicant has no criminal history, till date only three witnesses out of 27 prosecution witnesses could be examined, the trial is going at a very slow pace, lack of corroborative medical evidence, arguments advanced by learned counsel for

¶16

the parties, the period for which the applicant is in jail and without expressing any opinion on the merit of the case, I find it to be a fit case for enlarging the applicant on bail.

¶17

6. Let the applicant Guddu alias Dharmendra Kumar Yadav, involved in Case Crime No.81 of 2022 under sections 363, 366, 376DA, 323, 328 I.P.C., 5(g)/6 of POCSO Act, P.S. be released on bail 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 which are being imposed in the interest of justice:-

¶18

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

¶19

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

¶20

(iii) 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.

¶21

(iv) 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.

¶22

(v) 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 I.P.C. (now 269 BNS)

¶23

(vi) 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. (now 84 BNSS) 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 I.P.C. (now 209 BNS).

¶24

7. The application is allowed accordingly.

¶25

Order Date :- 4.8.2025 kkb/

¶26

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

Guddu Alias Dharmendra Kumar Yadav v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Govt. of U.P. Lucknow and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Guddu Alias Dharmendra Kumar Yadav v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Govt. of U.P. Lucknow and 3 Others

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

Deepesh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Lko. and Another

Babi @ Shakir Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

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

Umer Khan vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home U.P. Lko. and 3 Others

Guddu Alias Dharmendra Kumar Yadav vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Govt. of U.P. Lucknow and 3 Others

Yogendra Kumar vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko.