Vikas Yadav Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko and 3 Others

"Heard Mr. Ramesh Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for applicant and Mr. M.K. Singh 'Bhardwaj', who has filed Vakalatnama today in Court on behalf of informant/complainant-opposite party no.2. Same is taken on record.

¶10

Learned counsel for applicant as well as learned counsel for complainant has stated that the prosecutrix is willing to live with the applicant and the applicant is also ready to get marriage with the prosecutrix as soon as she attains the marriageable age therefore, the applicant may be enlarged on bail.

¶11

So as to verify the aforesaid fact, the appearance of the prosecutrix would be required.

¶12

List this case on 12.02.2025. On that date, the complainant and the prosecutrix shall appear in person before this Court. After considering the statement of the prosecutrix and the complainant, this bail application may be disposed off finally.

¶13

When the case is listed next, name of Mr. M.K. Singh 'Bhardwaj', shall be shown as learned counsel for opposite party no.2 in the cause list."

¶14

3. Today, the prosecutrix (X) along with her father, namely, Sri Gajanand Pal are present in person before the Court, who have been identified by their counsel.

¶15

4. The prosecutrix has stated that she is in affairs with the present applicant and both are willing to get married as soon as they attain the marriageable age. She has stated that the present applicant has not committed any offence against her.

¶16

5. The father of the prosecutrix, Sri Gajanand Pal, has also stated that when the present applicant and his daughter are willing to get married, he would have no objection on that and shall arrange their marriage as soon as they attain the marriageable age.

¶17

6. As per learned counsel for the applicant, the present applicant (Vikas Yadav) is languishing in jail since 19.12.2024 in Case Crime No.495 of 2024, under Sections 137 (2), 87 & 64 (2) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Section 5/6 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (in short POCSO Act), Police Station-Salon, District-Raebareli.

¶18

7. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the present applicant has been falsely implicated in this case as he has not committed any offence as alleged in the prosecution story. The charge-sheet has been filed. The present applicant is having no prior criminal history of any kind whatsoever. He has undertaken on behalf of the present applicant that the applicant shall not misuse the liberty of bail, if so granted by this Court, and shall abide by all terms and conditions of the bail order and shall cooperate in the trial proceedings properly.

¶19

On the other hand, learned Additional Government Advocate has opposed the prayer for bail of the present applicant and has requested that any appropriate direction may be passed in the interest of the prosecution.

¶20

9. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the material available on record as well as undertaking given on behalf of the present applicant as well as the statements of the prosecutrix and her father, who are present before the Court and also considering the fact that charge-sheet has been filed and the present applicant is having no prior criminal history of any kind whatsoever and the undertaking that the applicant 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 properly, without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, I find it appropriate that the present applicant may be enlarged on bail in this case.

¶21

10. Accordingly, the instant bail application is allowed.

¶22

11. Let the applicant (Vikas Yadav) be released on bail in the

¶23

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:-

¶24

(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.

¶25

(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 IPC/269 of the B.N.S., 2023.

¶26

(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./84 of B.N.S.S., 2023 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 IPC/208 of the B.N.S., 2023.

¶27

(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./351 of B.N.S.S., 2023. 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. The present applicant shall not leave the country without prior permission of the Court.

¶28

[Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.]

¶29

Order Date :- 19.2.2025 Suresh/

¶30

Digitally signed by :- SURESH CHANDRA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Vikas Yadav v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

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

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

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

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

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

Dilip Pasi @ Dilip Kumar Bangali Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Home Lko.

Abhay Pratap Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Cooperative Lko. and Others