Jitendra Yadav vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:44777

Court No. - 71

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 1692 of 2025

Applicant :- Jitendra Yadav Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Shailendra Kumar Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Raj Beer Singh,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A for the State and perused the record.

¶7

The present second bail application has been filed by the applicant in Case Crime No. 279 of 2021, under Sections 376(3), 147, 452, 504, 506 of I.P.C. and Section 3/4 Protection of Children From Sexual Offences Act, 2012, P.S. Sarnath, District Varanasi, with the prayer to enlarge the applicant on bail.

¶8

It has been argued by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in this case. In the first information report there is no specific allegation of rape and only it was alleged that applicant has done foul act against the victim. It was submitted that victim has developed her version in her statement under Section 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. and made allegations of molestation against applicant. It is further submitted that in fact the informant has to pay Rs. 10,700/- for tuition of victim and the applicant has been falsely implicated due to that reason. Victim has not sustained any injury. It is further submitted that first bail application of applicant was rejected by this Court vide order dated 29.03.2024 and Trial Court was directed to expedite the proceedings of the trial and to conclude the same as early as possible preferably within a period of nine

¶9

months. It was pointed out that despite bringing the said order in to the notice of the Trial Court, no effort has been made by the Trial Court to expedite the proceedings and in fact after the said direction no witness has been examined by the Trial Court and trial is being conducted at snail's pace. It is further submitted that statements of informant and victim have already been recorded before the Trial Court and thus, there is no possibility of tampering with evidence. Referring to statement of victim recorded before the Trial Court, it was submitted that no case under Section 376(3) I.P.C. is made out against applicant. The applicant is in judicial custody since 18.07.2021 and thus, he has already undergone detention of more than three and a half years. Lastly, it was stated that applicant has no criminal history and in case he is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶10

Learned A.G.A. has opposed the bail application and submitted that victim is a minor girl aged about 13 years and applicant was working as Tutor and the victim has made allegation that applicant used to touch her private parts.

¶11

I have considered the rival submissions and perused the record.

¶12

Perusal of record shows that statements of material witness, including the victim, have already been recorded before the Trial Court. It appears that despite direction of this Court to expedite the trial, the trial is being proceeded at snail's pace in a routine manner. It appears that Trial Court has not made any effort to expedite the trial. The applicant has already undergone detention of more than three and a half years. In view of facts of the matter, it appears that trial of the case would take sufficient long time.

¶13

Considering entire facts, a case for bail is made out. Hence, the

¶14

second bail application is hereby allowed.

¶15

Let the applicant Jitendra Yadav involved in the aforesaid crime be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to the following conditions:-

¶16