Pravesh Kumar Yadav Vs State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Secrt. Lko.

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:46518

Court No. - 12

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 2372 of 2024

Applicant :- Pravesh Kumar Yadav Opposite Party :- State Of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Secrt. Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Vikas Verma,Abhinav Srivastava,Abhishek Srivastava,Shweta Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.

¶6

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

¶7

The present bail application has been filed by accused-applicant seeking bail in Case Crime No.114 of 2023, under Sections 323, 376, 427, 506 I.P.C., P.S. Hansvar, District Ambedkar Nagar.

¶8

This is the second bail application of the applicant. The first bail application of the applicant was rejected vide order dated 08.12.2023 passed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.12137 of 2023, the operative part of order is extracted below:-

¶9

"8. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the record, it is evident that prior to the lodging of the instant FIR, one more FIR bearing Case Crime No. 175 of 2020 was lodged by the prosecutrix/victim against the applicant, wherein also the allegations of molestation were levelled against the applicant. So far as the instant case is concerned, it has been alleged that the applicant was in a habit of teasing the prosecutrix/victim and on 12.6.2023 at about 6.00 pm, when the prosecutrix/victim was going to pursue her earlier case, an unknown Bolero vehicle stopped and they enquired about the applicant. The applicant annoyed by this started assaulting the prosecutrix/victim and also subjected her to rape. The allegations of the FIR have been corroborated by the prosecutrix/victim by her statements recorded under Sections 161 & 164 CrPC. Significantly, in the medical examination report of the prosecutrix/victim prepared after her medical examination on 22.6.2023, three injuries have been noticed on her person and one of the injury is multiple nail abrasions

¶10

found below her left breast.

¶11

9. In the considered opinion of this Court, the allegations of sexual assault coupled with the injury no. 2 i.e., multiple nail abrasions below her breast appears to be sufficient enough to persuade this Court not to exercise discretion in favour of the applicant. In result, the bail application moved on behalf of the applicant is rejected.

¶12

10. However, the trial court is directed to make all out efforts to conclude the trial within one year without granting soft adjournments to either parties."

¶13

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that while rejecting the first bail application, the learned trial court was directed to conclude the trial within a period of one year. The status report of the trial court dated 02.12.2024 is on record according to which five prosecution witnesses have been examined and only three formal witnesses namely, doctor, scribe of the F.I.R. and Investigating Officer are left to be examined. He submits that the time granted to the trial court to conclude the trial is already lapsed. Applicant is in jail since 04.07.2023. Submission of learned counsel for the applicant is that he has already incarcerated enough. There is no mark of any internal injury in the medico legal examination of the victim. Applicant has been falsely implicated. Applicant has explained the criminal history of two cases in paragraph 18 of the bail application. He submits that both the cases have been lodged by the same victim against the applicant. P.W.2 and P.W.3 who are independent witnesses have denied any such incident. He submits that there is no chance of tampering the prosecution witnesses as the fact witnesses have been examined.

¶14

Learned A.G.A. has opposed the bail prayer.

¶15

On due consideration to the submissions advanced, perusal of the record as also the fact that the applicant is languishing in jail since 04.07.2023, out of five fact witnesses only cross of P.W.5

¶16

and statement of three formal witnesses are left to be examined, there appears to be no chance of tampering the prosecution witnesses, the time limit granted by the court while rejecting the first bail application has already lapsed way back and without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, I find it to be a fit case for enlarging the applicant on bail.

¶17

Accordingly, the bail application is allowed .

¶18

Let the applicant Pravesh Kumar Yadav be released on bail in aforesaid case crime number subject to his furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court concerned with the following conditions:

¶19

(i) The applicant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.

¶20

(ii) The applicant will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness.

¶21

(iii) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶22

(iv) 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.

¶23

(v) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case

¶24

of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229-A of the Indian Panel Code (now Section 269 of BNS).

¶25

(vi) 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. (now Section 84 BNSS) 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 of the Indian Panel Code (now Section 209 BNS).

¶26

Order Date :- 8.8.2025 Saurabh Yadav/-

¶27

Digitally signed by :- SAURABH YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Pravesh Kumar Yadav v. State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Secrt. Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pravesh Kumar Yadav v. State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Secrt. 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

Monu Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Vipul Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Nisar Khan Vs State of U.P. Thru. the Prin. Secy. Home Deptt.

Karan and 2 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Sajan @ Ram Sanehi vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. U.P. Lko.

Pravesh Kumar Yadav vs State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Secrt. Lko.