Munna Yadav v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC21 Feb 2025BAIL/4779/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bail granted in gang rape case (Sections 70(1), 351(3) BNS) due to delayed FIR, no medical evidence, no criminal history, and no flight risk. Bail is rule, jail exception under Article 21. Conditions: personal bond, two sureties, no tampering, mandatory court appearances.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned, subject to conditions. ¶¶27

Why is it important?

Munna Yadav vs State of U.P. — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:30301

¶2

Court No. - 65

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 4779 of 2025

¶4

Applicant :- Munna Yadav Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Brijesh Kumar Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.

¶6

List has been revised.

¶7

Heard Sri Brijesh Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Sunil Kumar, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶8

Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 689 of 2024, under Sections 70(1), 351(3) BNS, Police Station Khorabar, District Gorakhpur, during the pendency of trial.

¶9

PROSECUTION STORY:

¶10

The applicant and two other co-accused persons are stated to have abducted the victim on 26.11.2024 and are stated to have gang raped her by taking her to a secluded place.

¶11

ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF APPLICANT :

¶12

The applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case and he has nothing to do with the said offence.

¶13

The FIR is delayed by about eight days and there is no explanation of the said delay caused.

¶14

The victim is obviously major as she is a married lady. She is stated to be 35 years old.

¶15

There is no medical corroboration of the said incident.

¶16

Several other submissions have been made on behalf of the applicant to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against him. The circumstances which, as per counsel, led to the false implication of the applicant have also been touched upon at length.

¶17

There is no criminal history of the applicant. The applicant is languishing in jail since 05.12.2024. The applicant is ready to cooperate with trial. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶18

ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF STATE :

¶19

The bail application has been opposed but the submissions raised by the learned counsel for the applicant could not be disputed.

¶20

CONCLUSION:

¶21

In light of the judgement of the Supreme Court passed in Niranjan Singh and another vs Prabhakar Rajaram Kharote and others AIR 1980 SC 785, this Court has avoided detailed examination of the evidence and elaborate documentation of the merits of the case as no party should have the impression that his case has been prejudiced. A prima facie satisfaction of case is needed but it is not the same as an exhaustive exploration of the merits in the order itself.

¶22

The well-known principle of "Presumption of Innocence Unless Proven Guilty," gives rise to the concept of bail as a rule and imprisonment as an exception.

¶23

A person's right to life and liberty, guaranteed by Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, cannot be taken away simply because the person is accused of committing an offence until the guilt is established beyond a reasonable doubt. Article 21 of the Indian Constitution states that no one's life or personal liberty may be taken away unless the procedure established by law is followed, and the procedure must be just and reasonable. The said principle has been recapitulated by the Supreme Court in Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and Ors., 2022 INSC 690 .

¶24

Reiterating the aforesaid view the Supreme Court in the case of Manish Sisodia Vs. Directorate of Enforcement 2024 INSC 595 has again emphasised that the very well-settled principle of law that bail is not to be withheld as a punishment is not to be forgotten. It is high time that the Courts should recognize the principle that "bail is a rule and jail is an exception" .

¶25

Learned AGA could not bring forth any exceptional circumstances which would warrant denial of bail to the applicant.

¶26

It is settled principle of law that the object of bail is to secure the attendance of the accused at the trial. No material particulars or circumstances suggestive of the applicant fleeing from justice or thwarting the course of justice or creating other troubles in the shape of repeating offences or intimidating witnesses and the like have been shown by learned AGA.

¶27

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, taking into consideration the delay in institution of the FIR coupled by the fact that there is no medical corroboration of the said incident 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 .

¶28

Let the applicant- Munna Yadav involved in aforementioned case crime number be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions.

¶29

(i) The applicant shall not tamper with evidence.

¶30

(ii) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the Trial Court on dates fixed for (1) opening of the case, (2) framing of charge and (3) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C./351 B.N.S.S. 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.

¶31

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail. Identity, status and residence proof of the applicant and sureties be verified by the court concerned before the bonds are accepted.

¶32

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.

¶33

Order Date :- 4.3.2025 Sumit S

¶34

(Justice Krishan Pahal)

¶35

Digitally signed by :- SUMIT SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Munna Yadav v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

Munna Yadav v. State of U.P.

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

Madhu Chauhan vs State of U.P.

Arup Thakur vs State of U.P.

Ayu Kumar Alias Lavkush vs State of U.P.

Aasim vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Waris vs State of U.P.

Hasbuddin vs State of U.P. and 3 Others