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

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:55938

Court No. - 65

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 4596 of 2025

Applicant :- Abhishek Yadav Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Rajesh Kumar Singh,Vinod Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.

¶6

List has been revised. As informed by learned State Law Officer, notice to the informant has been served on 30.1.2025 but none is present on behalf of the informant.

¶7

Supplementary affidavit filed today by the learned counsel for the applicant is taken on record.

¶8

Heard Sri Rajesh Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Jai Kishan Chaurasia, learned State Law Officer and perused the material placed on record.

¶9

Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 291 of 2024, under Sections 376(2)n, 504 of I.P.C. and Sections 3(1)gha, 3(2)v of SC/ST Act and Sections 5L/6 of POCSO Act, Police Station - Sahatwar, District - Ballia, during the pendency of trial.

¶10

As per prosecution story, the applicant is stated to have established corporeal relationship with the victim on the false promise of marriage and had later on refused to comply with the said promise.

¶11

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. There is no clinching evidence to suggest that the applicant misled the victim from the beginning. The informant has converted a failed consensual physical relationship into a criminal case. The victim is stated to be 20 years at this point of time. There is no medical corroboration of the incident. The criminal history of one case assigned to the applicant has been explained. The applicant is languishing in jail since 13.12.2024 and he is ready to cooperate

¶12

with trial. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶13

Learned State Law Officer has vehemently opposed the bail application.

¶14

In the case of Prabhakar Tewari Vs. State of U.P. and another, (2020) 11 SCC 648 , the Supreme Court has observed that pendency of several criminal cases against an accused by itself cannot be a basis for refusal of bail.

¶15

The Supreme Court in Pramod Suryabhan Pawar vs. State of Maharashtra and Another, 2019 (9) SCC 608 and Ansaar Mohammad vs. State of Rajasthan and Another, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 886 , has stated that entering into any kind of corporeal relationship with a person on the false promise to marry cannot be termed as rape.

¶16

This Court has avoided expressing its opinion as the case hinges on whether the applicant's promise of marriage was genuine or false and whether the physical relationship was consensual or not. It is for the Trial Court to draw a conclusion which will depend on the evidence presented before it and its interpretation as per law.

¶17

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, the evidence on record, and taking into consideration the settled law of the Supreme Court passed in Satender Kumar Antil vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and Ors., 2022 INSC 690 and Manish Sisodia vs. Directorate of Enforcement, 2024 INSC 595 and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed .

¶18

Let the applicant- Abhishek Yadav, 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.

¶19

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

¶20

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

¶21

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

¶22

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.

¶23

Order Date:- 16.4.2025 Siddhant

¶24

(Justice Krishan Pahal)

¶25

Digitally signed by :- SIDDHANT SAHU High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Abhishek Yadav v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Abhishek Yadav 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Lal Singh Sen Alias Jeevan vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Sunny vs State of U.P.

Sandeep Kumar vs State of U.P.

Jogendra Alias Jugnu vs State of U.P.

Vipin vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Mohit Bhati vs State of U.P. and 3 Others