Anuj Yadav @ Katiya Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko and 3 Others

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:23089

¶2

Court No. - 13

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 9251 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Anuj Yadav @ Katiya

¶5

Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- D.P. Dutt Tiwari,Ajay Veer Singh,Prashant Dubey,Ram Suphal,Ravindra Kumar Yadava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Shadab Waheed,Syed Raza Mehdi

¶6

Hon'ble Manish Mathur,J.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for applicant, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing on behalf of opposite party-State and Mr. Syed Raza Mehdi, learned counsel for informant.

¶8

First bail application has been filed with regard to Case Crime No.0346 of 2024 under Sections 363, 366, 354, 328 I.P.C. & 7/8 Protection of Children from Sexual offences Act, 2012 P.S. Kotwali Nagar, Distict Ayodhya.

¶9

As per contents of first information report, the incident is said to have taken place on 22.06.2024 when applicant allegedly enticed the minor daughter of informant.

¶10

Learned counsel for applicant submits that applicant has been falsely implicated in the charges levelled against him which would be evident from fact that alleged victim in her statements under Sections 180 and 183 BNSS has not supported the prosecution version. Learned counsel has also drawn attention to crossexamination of victim as P.W.1 to submit that there is nothing adverse against applicant therein. It is submitted that applicant is under incarceration since 20.07.2024 and three prosecution witnesses have already been examined. It is therefore submitted that there is no scope of any interference in evidence.

¶11

Learned Additional Government Advocate appearing on behalf of State as well as learned counsel for informant have opposed the bail application with submission that the victim in her examination in chief has clearly corroborated allegations levelled against applicant particularly with regard to Protection of Children from Sexual offences Act, 2012. Learned counsel for complainant has also drawn attention to medical examination report of victim to submit that the same also corroborates the allegations levelled against applicant. It is however, admitted that depositions of three prosecution witnesses, i.e. the victim and her parents have already concluded.

¶12

Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Sanjay Chandra v. Central Bureau of Investigation , reported in (2012) 1 SCC 40 has specifically held that bail is to be a norm and an under-trial is not required to be in jail for ever pending trial. Relevant paragraphs of the judgment are as under :-

¶13

"21. In bail applications, generally, it has been laid down from the earliest times that the

¶14

object of bail is to secure the appearance of the accused person at his trial by reasonable amount of bail. The object of bail is neither punitive nor preventative. Deprivation of liberty must be considered a punishment, unless it is required to ensure that an accused person will stand his trial when called upon. The courts owe more than verbal respect to the principle that punishment begins after conviction, and that every man is deemed to be innocent until duly tried and duly found guilty."

¶15

"27. This Court, time and again, has stated that bail is the rule and committal to jail an exception. It has also observed that refusal of bail is a restriction on the personal liberty of the individual guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution."

¶16

Upon consideration of submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perusal of material on record, prima facie, and subject to further evidence being led in trial, it appears that although in her statements recorded under Sections 180 and 183 BNSS, the victim had taken a contradictory stand but in her deposition during trial as P.W. 1, she has corroborated the prosecution version in her examination in chief. The aspect of medical evidence corroborating allegations levelled against applicant coupled with deposition of victim would be subject matter of evidence during course of trial. It is also evident that applicant is said to be aged about 18 years and is under incarceration since 20.07.2024 with the main prosecution witnesses having already deposed. In such circumstances, without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, this Court finds, the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in this case.

¶17

Accordingly bail application is allowed.

¶18

Let applicant Anuj Yadav @ Katiya , involved in aforesaid case crime be released on bail on his/her 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:-

¶19

(i) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he/she 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.

¶20

(ii) 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/her under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶21

(iii) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his/her presence proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. 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/her, in accordance with law, under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶22

(iv) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. 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

¶23

proceed against him/her in accordance with law. Order Date :- 23.4.2025 kvg/-

¶24

Digitally signed by :- GIREESAN KV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Anuj Yadav @ Katiya v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anuj Yadav @ Katiya v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Shahjad Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Smt. Anarkali Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. U.P. Lko. and Another

Yusuf @ Yousuf Ahmad Khan Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Anikesh @ Ankesh @ Gore Pandit vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Shubham Pathak vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Raj Narayan Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Panchayat Raj Govt. of U.P. Lko. and 3 Others