Sanjay Yadav Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin… — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Allahabad HC (2025)

Sanjay Yadav Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin… — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Allahabad HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Appeal allowed; impugned order dated 06.03.2024 of the Special Judge, SC/ST (P.A.) Act, Sultanpur in Bail No. 574 of 2024 set aside; appellant Sanjay Yadav to be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount, subject to four bail conditions (no adjournments when witnesses present; presence on each date with S. 229-A IPC consequences; S. 82 Cr.P.C. proclamation / S. 174-A IPC consequences on misuse; personal presence for S. 313 Cr.P.C. statements); trial Court directed to conclude trial expeditiously; Office to communicate order to trial court forthwith.

Issue for consideration

Whether the order dated 06.03.2024 passed by the learned Special Judge, SC/ST (P.A.) Act, Sultanpur in Bail No. 574 of 2024 ought to be set aside and the appellant released on bail, in view of the circumstances in which the injured was taken to hospital, the non-consideration of those facts by the trial Court, and the likelihood of delay in conclusion of the trial.

Court's answer

The circumstance that the injured, though stated (per the prosecution case) to have been sleeping with her daughter Varsha at the time of the incident, was brought to hospital by Neelam (residing two kilometres away) and by Sunil and Dilip (residing about fifteen kilometres away) — and not by Varsha or the complainant — was not considered by the trial Court while passing the impugned order; consequently, the impugned order is liable to be set aside and the appellant is entitled to bail.

Ratio / Principle

Keeping in view that the trial of the case was not likely to be concluded in the near future, the appeal was found to have substance and was allowed; the impugned order dated 06.03.2024 passed by the learned Special Judge, SC/ST (P.A.) Act, Sultanpur in Bail No. 574 of 2024 was set aside.

Key takeaways

The appellant Sanjay Yadav was ordered to 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 conditions: (i) an undertaking not to seek adjournments on dates fixed for evidence when witnesses are present; (ii) presence before the trial court on each date, failing which action may be taken under Section 229-A IPC; (iii) upon misuse of bail and failure to appear after proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C., initiation of proceedings under Section 174-A IPC; and (iv) personal presence on dates fixed for recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C.ratio¶18
The trial Court was directed to conclude the trial of the case in question expeditiously, and the Office was directed to communicate the order to the trial court forthwith.ratio¶23

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal Appeal No. 2460 of 2024 (Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench; Rajeev Singh, J.; order dated 4.3.2025; Neutral Citation 2025:AHC-LKO:13185). Appeal by Sanjay Yadav against the order dated 06.03.2024 of the Special Judge, SC/ST (P.A.) Act, Sultanpur in Bail No. 574 of 2024 arising out of FIR/Case Crime No. 110 of 2023 (Police Station Bandhua Kalan, District Sultanpur) — appeal memo citing u/s 324, 307, 308, 452, 506 I.P.C. and 3(2)(5) of SC/ST (P.A.) Act; body narrating FIR sections as 452, 324, 308, 560 I.P.C. and 3(1)(da), 3(1)(dha) of SC/ST Act, lodged on 07.07.2023 by Chhotelal. Court observed that although the prosecution case placed the injured sleeping with her daughter Varsha, she was brought to hospital by Neelam (about 2 km away) and Sunil and Dilip (about 15 km away), not by Varsha or the complainant — facts not considered by the trial Court. With only two of fourteen witnesses examined and trial unlikely to conclude soon, appeal allowed; impugned order set aside; appellant released on bail on personal bond and two sureties with conditions involving Ss. 229-A and 174-A IPC, S. 82 Cr.P.C. and S. 313 Cr.P.C.; trial to be concluded expeditiously.

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:13185

Court No. - 13

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 2460 of 2024

Appellant :- Sanjay Yadav Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And Another Counsel for Appellant :- Satya Prakash Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Dileep Kumar Tiwari

Hon'ble Rajeev Singh,J.

Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned counsel for the complainant and learned A.G.A. for the State.

The instant appeal has been filed by the appellant seeking following reliefs:-

"To quash the impugned order dated 06.03.2024 passed by learned Special Judge, SC/ST (P.A.) Act, Sultanpur in Bail No. 574 of 2024 (State Vs. Sanjay Yadav) arising out of Case Crime No. 110 of 2023, u/s 324, 307, 308, 452, 506 I.P.C. and 3(2)(5) of SC/ST (P.A.) Act, Police StationBandhua Kalan, District- Sultanpur."

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant was falsely implicated in the present case due to some land dispute as the complainant of the present case was inclined to grab the land of the appellant, and only for this reason, brother of the appellant was also implicated in a rape case by lodging an F.I.R. bearing Case Crime No. 171 of 2022, u/s 376 I.P.C., 3/4 of P.O.C.S.O. Act and 3(2)(5) of SC/ST Act, in which, the alleged victim was daughter of the complainant of the present case. In this case, charge-sheet was submitted against the brother of the appellant and after framing of charge, learned trial Court recorded statement of Smt. Rekha (informant of Case Crime No.171 of 2022) on 12.12.2022, who was one of the witnesses in this case. Thereafter, statement of the victimVarsha was also recorded on 16.01.2023. The private respondent and other family members again started making pressure on the appellant for providing the land, but when this demand was denied, F.I.R. No. 110 of 2023 u/s 452, 324, 308, 560 I.P.C. and 3(1)(da), 3(1)(dha) of SC/ST Act was lodged on 07.07.2023 by Mr. Chhotelal (complainant of the present case) against the appellant on the basis of incorrect facts.

It is further submitted that as per the prosecution case, the injured- Smt. Rekha was sleeping along with her daughterVarsha, at that time, injury was caused to her by the appellant.

During the course of the incident, Varsha (daughter of the complainant) woke up and raised alarm. Having heard the alarm, the complainant reached at the place of incident. But, they did not bring injured- Smt. Rekha to hospital.

It is next submitted that Neelam- daughter of the injured (born out of wedlock with Moti Lal), who was living two kilometers away and two boys, namely, Sunil and Dilip, who were living 15 to 20 kms away from the place of incident, came to the place of incident, thereafter, the injured was shifted to hospital in ambulance, therefore, the story is suspicious one.

It is lastly submitted that till today, only two witnesses have been examined out of fourteen witnesses. As there is no possibility of conclusion of the trial in near future, the appellant is entitled for bail and the order passed by learned trial Court is liable to be set aside.

Learned counsel for the complainant submits that the statement of the injured was recorded before learned trial Court, who supported the prosecution version.

Learned A.G.A. and learned counsel for the complainant do not dispute the fact that the injured was brought to hospital by Neelam, Sunil and Dilip, but not by Varsha and Chhote Lal. They concedes the fact that only two witnesses have been examined out of fourteen witnesses till today.

Considering the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and going through the contents of the appeal, impugned order, aforesaid F.I.R.s as well as other relevant documents, it is evident from the record that at the time of the incident, as per the prosecution case, the injured was sleeping with her daughter- Varsha. But she was brought to hospital by Neelam who was residing two kilometers away from the place of incident and by two others, namely, Sunil and Dilip who were residing about fifteen kilometers away from the place of the incident. As all these facts were not considered by the trial Court while passing the impugned order, the impugned order is liable to be set aside and the appellant is entitled for bail.

Resultantly, in view of the above facts and circumstances of the case as well as keeping in view the fact that the trial of the case is not likely to be concluded in near future, the appeal has substance and it is accordingly allowed . The impugned order dated 06.03.2024 passed by learned Special Judge, SC/ST (P.A.) Act, Sultanpur in Bail No. 574 of 2024 is hereby set aside.

Let the appellant- Sanjay Yadav involved in the aforementioned 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, with the following conditions:-

(i) The appellant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he will 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.

(ii) The appellant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through their counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code.

(iii) In case, the appellant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence, proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued and the appellant 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 174-A of the Indian Penal Code.

(iv) The appellant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. If in the opinion of the trial court absence of the appellant 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.

The trial Court is directed to conclude the trial of the case in question expeditiously.

Office is directed to communicate this order to the trial court, forthwith.

Order Date :- 4.3.2025 Arpan

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