Mukesh Kumar Yadav Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:139855

Court No. - 64

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 20441 of 2025

Applicant :- Mukesh Kumar Yadav Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Laxami Pati,Pavan Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Samit Gopal,J.

¶6

List revised.

¶7

Heard Sri Pavan Kumar, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Bade Lal Bind, learned counsel for the State and perused the material on record.

¶8

This bail application under Section 483 of B.N.S.S., 2023 has been filed by the applicant- Mukesh Kumar Yadav , seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No. 279 of 2024, under Sections 137(2)/61(2), 87/61(2), 64, 123, 351(2) B.N.S. and Section 3/4 POCSO Act, Police Station Jewar, District Gautam Buddh Nagar.

¶9

Vide order dated 19.06.2025 notice was issued to the opposite party no.2 / informant. As per the office report dated 25.07.2025 a report regarding service of notice has been received. The report dated 17.07.2025 of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gautam Buddh Nagar is on record which states that notice has been served on the opposite party no.2 personally. Despite service of notice, no one appears on behalf of the opposite party no.2.

¶10

The first information report of the present matter was lodged on 17.08.2024 by Sanju @ Sanjay against unknown persons alleging therein that on 16.08.2024 at about 9 am he had gone to his fields and his wife Smt. Laxmi came to give him lunch at around 12 pm after leaving his daughter aged about 16 years & 05 months at the house. When he and his wife returned back at about 12.30 pm his daughter was not found in the house who was searched a lot but could not be traced. A report be lodged and action be taken.

¶11

Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is submitted that the implication of the applicant has surfaced in the present matter during investigation. It is submitted that the victim in her statement recorded under Section 180 B.N.S.S. stated that she was having a love affair with Lekhraj and he had established physical relationship with her many times in her house. On 16.08.2024 Lekhraj took her to Tappal from where he sent her to Vrindavan by bus and went away. She then reached Vrindavan and stayed there in Aashram for 2-3 days. She then met a lady and a boy there who took her to Jaipur. She stayed there in a temple for 2-3 days. Later on she was got married with Mukesh the applicant. It is submitted

¶12

that in her statement recorded under Section 183 B.N.S.S. she then improves the prosecution version and states that Geeta used to give her some intoxicating medicine after which she used to loose her consciousness. She was raped by Mukesh and Lekhraj. It is submitted that the present case is a case of false implication. While placing the statement of Sanju @ Sanjay the first informant recorded as P.W.-1 before the trial court it is submitted that he in his crossexamination on behalf of the applicant has stated that the applicant did not take away his daughter and his daughter did not marry him. It is submitted that coaccused Lekhraj has been granted bail by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 03.04.2025 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 45755 of 2024 (Lekhraj Vs. State Of U.P. And 3 Others), the copy of the said order has been produced before the Court which is taken on record. It is submitted that the investigation in the matter has concluded and charge-sheet has been submitted. The applicant has no criminal history as stated in para 24 and is in jail since 04.01.2025.

¶13

Per contra, learned counsel for the State vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that the applicant has been assigned specific role in the present matter of committing rape upon the victim. It is submitted that the C.M.O. had previously medically examined the victim on 17.12.2024 and given a certificate that she is aged about 17 years. It is submitted that second certificate dated 19.03.2025 issued by the C.M.O. concerned is being relied upon in which her age is stated to be 18 years which cannot thus be trusted. It is submitted that the trial is going on in which one witness has been examined. It is submitted that the present case is a case of gang rape.

¶14

After having heard learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, it is evident that the applicant is named in the statements of the victim and has bee assigned specific role of committing rape upon her. Two persons namely Lekhraj and Mukesh the applicant have been assigned role of committing rape on the victim. The trial in the matter is going on. The release of the applicant at this stage may have an adverse effect in the trial.

¶15

Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court does not find it a fit case for bail, hence, the bail application is rejected.

¶16

Pending application (s), if any, shall stand disposed of.

¶17

Order Date :- 18.8.2025 AS Rathore

¶18

(Samit Gopal,J.)

¶19

Digitally signed by :- ABHISHEK SINGH RATHOR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Mukesh Kumar Yadav v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mukesh Kumar Yadav v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases