Allowed

Rakesh Yadav v. State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Allahabad HC8 Aug 2025CRLA/2279/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appellant convicted for twelve years under Section 376 IPC sought bail pending appeal. The court noted no rape allegation appeared in the FIR, the prosecutrix's version improved only in police and magisterial statements, she was a married lady alleged to be a consenting party, and the appellant had no criminal history. Bail was granted with conditions including deposit of fine.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail on personal bond with two sureties, subject to no criminal activity and deposit of entire fine within two months.

Rakesh Yadav vs State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt… — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2025)

¶1

Court No. - 28

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 2279 of 2024

¶3

Appellant :- Rakesh Yadav Respondent :- State Of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. Counsel for Appellant :- Vaibhav Srivastava,Vishnu Pratap Singh Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Abhishek Awasthi

¶4

Hon'ble Brij Raj Singh, J. Order on C.M. Application No.1 of 2024

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the appellant-applicant, learned AGA. and the learned counsel for the complainant on the bail application in pending appeal.

¶6

This criminal appeal has been filed against the judgement and order of conviction dated 10.07.2024 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge/Fast Track Court No.1, District Ayodhya in Sessions Trial No.210 of 2021, arising out of Case Crime No.387 of 2019, under Sections 376, 323. 504 and 506 IPC, Police Station Mawai, District Ayodhya/Faizabad, thereby convicting and sentencing the appellant under Section 376 IPC for twelve years rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs.30,000/- and in default of payment of fine, further to undergo simple imprisonment of one year; under Section 323 IPC for six months rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default of payment of fine, further to undergo simple imprisonment of one month; under Section 504 IPC for one year rigorous imprisonment and under Section 506(2) IPC for four years rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs.10,000/and in default of payment of fine, further to undergo simple imprisonment of six months. However, all the sentences shall run concurrently.

¶7

Learned counsel for the appellant-applicant submits that in the First Information Report lodged by the prosecutrix, no

¶8

allegation of rape has been levelled against the appellantapplicant, rather it has been stated in the First Information Report that when appellant-applicant caught hold of her hand, she pushed away his hand and ran away from the place of occurrence. However, after twenty days, in her statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. before the police, she improved her version stating therein that on the knife point, appellant-applicant committed rape against her. Thereafter, in the statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., the same improved version has been reiterated. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant-applicant that the prosecutrix is a married lady and at the most it is a case of consent. Doctor has also given opinion that there is no external injury found on the body of the prosecutrix and her hymen is old torn and healed. Since the prosecutrix is a married lady and her hymen is old torn and haled, it cannot be said that the appellant-applicant committed rape against her. Learned counsel further submits that appellant-applicant has been in jail since 10.04.2024. He was on bail during trial and he has not misused the liberty granted to him. There is no criminal history against the appellant-applicant. Therefore, he prays that appellant-applicant may be enlarged on bail.

¶9

On the other hand, learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail, but he could not dispute the fact that in the First Information report, no allegation of rape has been levelled against the appellant-applicant, however, in the statements recorded under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C., the prosecutrix has improved her version levelling allegation of rape against the appellant-applicant.

¶10

Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case; the argument that in the First Information report, no allegation

¶11

of rape has been levelled against the appellant-applicant and the prosecutrix has improved her version in the statements recorded under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. levelling allegation of rape against the appellant-applicant; the argument that prosecutrix was a married lady and was a consenting party and there is no criminal history against the appellant-applicant, the appellantapplicant is entitled to be released on bail.

¶12

Let appellant-applicant Rakesh Yadav involved in aforesaid special session trial be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond with two sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the condition that during bail, the accused-appellant/applicant shall not indulge himself in any criminal activity. If he is found to have indulged in any criminal activity, the prosecution will be at liberty to file an application for cancellation of bail.

¶13

As soon as the personal bond and sureties are furnished, photocopies of the same are directed to be transmitted to this Court forthwith by the trial court concerned to be kept on record of this appeal.

¶14

However, realization of fine imposed by the learned trial court is not stayed and the appellant-applicant shall deposit the entire fine within a period of two months from the date of his release, failing which, the bail granted to the appellant-applicant shall stand cancelled and he shall be arrested and sent to jail to serve out the sentence as awarded to her.

¶15

Office is directed to prepare the typed paper book in this case and provide a copy of the same to learned counsel for the parties as per the Rules of the Court.

¶16

Subject to above noted terms, bail application stands

¶17

allowed.

¶18

Order on Memo of Appeal

¶19

List the appeal on its own turn.

¶20

. Order Date :- 8.8.2025 Rao/-

¶21

(Brij Raj Singh, J.)

¶22

Digitally signed by :- CHEBROLU SRINIVASA RAO High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Rakesh Yadav v. State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rakesh Yadav v. State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Vivek Pratap Singh Alias Boni Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Bhawana Verma vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. /Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and Another

Umesh Kumar @ Nanhey vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and 3 Others

Arvind Kumar vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko and Another

Rita Devi and 2 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko and 8 Others

Anantram vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another