Brijesh Yadav @ Anil Yadav Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home Lko. and 3 Others

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 8647 of 2025

¶3

Brijesh Yadav @ Anil Yadav

¶4

.....Applicant(s)

¶5

Versus

¶6

State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home Lko. And 3 Others .....Opposite Party(s) Counsel for Applicant(s) : Jay Krishna Shukla, Avaneesh Sharma Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.

¶7

Court No. - 12

¶8

HON'BLE KARUNESH SINGH PAWAR, J.

¶9

Despite the notice having been served, none appears for the complainant.

¶10

Supplementary affidavit filed today is taken on record.

¶11

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA for the State and perused the record.

¶12

In the prosecution case, it is alleged that the daughter of the informant aged about 18 years has been enticed by the co-accused Pawan Yadav on 19.08.2020 at about 9 P.M. On 21.08.2020, the informant found his daughter in an unconscious condition. He took her to the district hospital. After her recovery, she narrated the incident to the informant and she named the applicant and the co-accused persons.

¶13

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent. The victim, in her statement, under Section 161 Cr.P.C and 164 Cr.P.C, has not named the applicant and no allegation whatsoever, has been made by the victim against the applicant. After two months of the recording of the statement of the victim under Section 161 Cr.P.C, the statement of the victim under Section 164 Cr.P.C was recorded, wherein she name the applicant, but no allegation of rape was levelled against him.

¶14

It is further submitted that the applicant has criminal history of one case, which has been explained by learned counsel for the applicant in the supplementary affidavit filed today and he is languishing in jail since 28.07.2025. The chargesheet in the case has been filed. There is no possibility of the applicant of fleeing away after being released from jail or tampering with the witnesses. In case the applicant is enlarged on bail, he

¶15

BAIL No. 8647 of 2025

¶16

2

¶17

shall not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶18

Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the aforesaid facts as argued by the learned counsel for the applicant.

¶19

On due consideration to the submissions advanced, perusal of the record, the improvement made by the victim in her statements under Sections 161 Cr.P.C and 164 Cr.P.C; the fact that chargesheet has been filed; there appears to be no chance of tampering the prosecution evidence coupled with the fact that the applicant has no criminal history; he is languishing in jail since 28.07.2025 and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I find it to be a fit case for enlarging the applicant on bail.

¶20

Accordingly, the bail application is allowed .

¶21

1o. Let the applicant- Brijesh Yadav @ Anil Yadav involved in Case Crime No. 0332 of 2020, under Sections363, 366, 376, 506 I.P.C & Section 3/4 of POCSO Act and Sections 3(2) V, 3(2) VA of S.C/S.T Act, Police StationJethwara, District- Pratapgarh, 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 with the following conditions which are being imposed in the interest of justice:-

¶22

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

¶23

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

¶24

(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.

¶25

(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.

¶26

(v) 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 in accordance with law.

¶27

(vi) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence proclamation under Section 84 B.N.S.S. is issued and the

¶28

BAIL No. 8647 of 2025

¶29

3

¶30

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 209 of B.N.S.

¶31

September 10, 2025 DiVYa

¶32

(Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.)

¶33

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

Brijesh Yadav @ Anil Yadav v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home Lko. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Brijesh Yadav @ Anil Yadav v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home Lko. 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

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Mukesh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Home, Civil Sectt. Lko.

Rajesh Kumar Srivastava Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Public Works Deptt. Lko. and 2 Others

Visheshwar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Civil Secrett. Lko.

Mohd. Afzal Khan vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Lko. and 3 Others

Brijesh Yadav @ Anil Yadav vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home Lko. and 3 Others

Ritik Kannaujiya vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Deptt. U.P. Lko. and 3 Others