Yogesh Pratap @ Ankur Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:11882

Court No. - 11

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 1789 of 2025

Applicant :- Yogesh Pratap @ Ankur Singh Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Manoj Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.

¶6

Heard Sri Manoj Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Anant Pratap Singh, learned AGA for the State.

¶7

The present applicant is in jail since 23.12.2024, in case crime no. 475 of 2024, under Sections 64(1), 78, 79, 126(2), 115(2), 351(2), 352 of BNS at Police Station Colonelganj District Gonda.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that the present applicant has been falsely implicated as he has not committed any offence as alleged. Attention has been drawn towards the impugned FIR, which has been lodged on 07.11.2024 for the alleged incident dated 16.10.2024 without explaining the aforesaid delay. The informant is the prosecutrix herself and she has levelled allegation against the present applicant as well as against two female accused persons. However, during the course of the investigation, their name has been deleted from the chargesheet. In the FIR, no allegation of rape has been levelled, only the allegation of molestation has been levelled. While recording her statement under Section 180 BNSS, the prosecutrix/informant has not levelled any allegation of rape rather has reiterated the same story which has been indicated in the FIR. However, under Section 183 BNSS, the allegation of rape has been levelled against the present applicant. The learned counsel has stated that the aforesaid allegation is false and misconceived, but if such a statement is taken on its face value, the prosecutrix is herself saying that on the call of the present applicant she had undressed on the video call and the applicant clicked the video. Sri Manoj Kumar Singh has stated that if the present applicant was allegedly teasing her, she should not have not undressed on the call of the applicant as both the facts are contrary in nature. Besides, no evidence or material relating to preparing video has been received to the Investigating Officer. Therefore, no chargesheet has been filed under the IT Act.

¶9

Since, the FIR was lodged after delay, therefore, the medical examination of the prosecutrix could not substantiate the allegation of the statement of 183 BNSS. There is no criminal history of the applicant. The charge-sheet has been filed. The learned counsel has further submitted that if the applicant is released on bail, he shall shall cooperate in the trial proceedings and shall not misuse the liberty of bail. Further, the applicant shall abide by all terms and conditions of the bail order, the applicant may be enlarged on bail.

¶10

Learned AGA for the State has also opposed the bail application but could not dispute the submission of the learned counsel for the applicant.

¶11

Without entering into merits of the issue, considering the arguments of learned counsel for the parties; contents and allegations of the FIR and the fact that the present applicant is languishing in jail since 23.12.2024; there is no likelihood to conclude the trial in the near future; and undertaking of the applicant that he shall cooperate in the trial proceedings and shall not misuse the liberty of bail, I find it appropriate to release the applicant on bail.

¶12

The bail application is allowed .

¶13

Let the applicant- Yogesh Pratap @ Ankur Singh, be released on bail in the 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:-

¶14

(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.

¶15

(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 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶16

(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. is issued and the applicants fail 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.

¶17

(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. 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.

¶18

Order Date :- 27.2.2025 Anurag

¶19

Digitally signed by :- ANURAG SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Yogesh Pratap @ Ankur Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Yogesh Pratap @ Ankur Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

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

Shivam Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Smt. Neelam Vs Stat of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko

Shivam vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Rakesh @ Rakesh Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home District Lko. and 3 Others

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

Amrit Lal @ Bachcha Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.