Dharmendra Yadav Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 2 Others

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:5878

Court No. - 14

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 3415 of 2024 Appellant :- Dharmendra Yadav Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And 2 Others Counsel for Appellant :- Prashant Dubey Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Subhash Chandra Sharma,J.

¶5

This is second bail. The first bail was rejected by Hon'ble Mr. Justice Samim Ahmad.

¶6

This criminal appeal under Section 14-A(2) Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act has been preferred by the appellant with the prayer to set aside the bail rejection order dated 08.10.2024 passed by the learned Special Judge S.C./S.T. Act, Ayodhya/Faizabad.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the appellant, as well as the learned AGA and perused the entire record.

¶8

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that there is allegation of rape against him with the victim who was aged about more than 18 years. It is further submitted that during medical examination no any injury was found on the person of victim even in the form of scratch which shows either rape was not committed with the victim or she was consensual. In D.N.A report the sample of clothes of the victim was sent to F.S.L which was matched. In case it is accepted as such the case come within the purview of section 376/ 511 I.P.C.It is also submitted that the appellant is in jail since 30.07.2021 more than three and half years and having no criminal antecedent It is also submitted that trial is not possible to be concluded soon though there was direction for one year but is still pending. The Court below while passing the impugned order did not take into account the facts and evidence available on record in right perspective and erred in passing the same. It is lastly submitted that the impugned order rejecting the bail application of the appellant suffers from infirmity and illegality warranting interference by this Court.

¶9

Learned AGA opposed the prayer for bail.

¶10

I have considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned A.G.A and have gone through the entire record including the impugned order

¶11

carefully.

¶12

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, severity of punishment, injury report, period of appellant remained in jail and specially progress of trial which was directed to be concluded within one year but is still pending and not possible in near future therefore, this Court is of the opinion that the appellant has made out a case for bail. The Court below erred in rejecting the bail application. The impugned order suffers from infirmity and illegality and the same is liable to be set-aside and the appeal is to be allowed.

¶13

Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and the impugned order rejecting the bail application of the appellant is set-aside.

¶14

Let the appellant- Dharmendra Yadav involved in Case Crime No. 360 of 2021, under Sections 376/323, 504/506 IPC and Section 3(2)V SC/ST Act, P.S. Kotwali Bikapur, District Ayodhya 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. Further, before issuing the release order, the sureties be verified.

¶15

The appellant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.

¶16

The appellant will not pressurise/ intimidate the prosecution witness.

¶17

The appellant will appear before the trial court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted.

¶18

The appellant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which he is accused, or suspected, of the commission of which he is suspected.

¶19

The appellant 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.

¶20

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the prosecution shall be at liberty to move bail cancellation application before this Court.

¶21

Order Date :- 28.1.2025.

¶22

GS

¶23

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

Dharmendra Yadav v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dharmendra Yadav v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 2 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