Radhey Shyam Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:73680

Court No. - 65

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 13977 of 2025

Applicant :- Radhey Shyam Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Chandra Bhushan Yadav,Vibhuti Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.

¶6

List has been revised. As informed by learned AGA, notice to the informant has been served on 21.04.2025 but none is present on behalf of the informant.

¶7

Heard Sri Chandra Bhushan Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Ram Mohit Yadav, learned A.G.A. for the State and Ms. Rinki Pal, learned counsel appearing for the High Court Legal Services Authority and perused the record.

¶8

Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 168 of 2024 , under Sections 65(1), 89 of BNS and Sections 3/4 of POCSO Act, Police Station Sirsa Kalar, District Jalaun, during the pendency of trial.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the applicant is absolutely innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. He has nothing to do with the said offence as alleged in the FIR. The FIR is delayed by about 7 days and there is no explanation of the said delay caused.

¶10

Learned counsel has also stated that there is no medical corroboration of the incident. Even the victim denied being medically examined at all. Although, as per her own statement, victim is stated to be 14 years old. It is a clear cut case of false implication.

¶11

There is no criminal history of the applicant. The applicant is languishing in jail since 26.10.2024 and he is ready to cooperate with trial. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶12

Per contra, learned AGA and learned counsel appearing for the High Court Legal Services Authority have vehemently opposed the

¶13

bail application but unable to dispute the submissions raised by the learned counsel for the applicant and also the fact that the applicant has no criminal history.

¶14

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the delay in FIR coupled by the fact that the victim herself has denied her medical examination, I find it a fit case to release the applicant on bail. The bail application is allowed .

¶15

Let the applicant- Radhey Shyam , who is involved in aforementioned case crime 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 subject to following conditions. Further, before issuing the release order, the sureties be verified.

¶16

i) The applicant shall not tamper with the evidence during trial. ii) The applicant shall not pressurise/intimidate with the prosecution witnesses.

¶17

iii) The applicant shall appear before the trial court on the date fixed.

¶18

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.

¶19

It is made clear that observations made in granting bail to the applicant shall not in any way affect the learned trial Judge in forming his independent opinion based on the testimony of the witnesses.

¶20

Order Date :- 7.5.2025 Sumit S

¶21

(Justice Krishan Pahal)

¶22

Digitally signed by :- SUMIT SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Radhey Shyam v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Radhey Shyam v. State of U.P. 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