Lavlesh Yadav Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

"1. Case called out, but none appears on behalf of the private respondent-complainant, though the record reveals that two counsels, namely, Shri Rajesh Kumar and Shri Suhail Kashif have put in appearance on behalf of the complainant.

¶10

2. List this case in the next week.

¶11

3. It is made clear that, in case, learned counsel for the complainant fails to assist the Court on the next date, the matter shall be decided finally."

¶12

As names of Sri Rajesh Kumar and Sri Suhail Kashif are shown as counsel for the complainant but no one is present, therefore, the appeal is deciding with the assistance of learned counsel for the appellant and learned AGA for the State-respondents.

¶13

Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned A.G.A. for the State-respondents and perused the record.

¶14

The present appeal has been filed for setting aside the impugned order dated 6.12.2024 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Barabanki in Bail Application No. 3772/2024 arising out of Case Crime No. 414/2024 under Sections 64(2)(m), 316(2), 352 of BNS and Section 3(1)da, 3(1)dha, 3(2)(v) of SC/ST Act, Police Station- Tikaitnagar, DistrictBarabanki.

¶15

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant has been falsely implicated in the present case as he was working with the husband of the complainant in UAE. He further submits that in an accident her husband died and thereafter body of her husband was brought to

¶16

India for cremation and the appellant, who has provided best help to the complainant as she was having two daughters and thereafter she started insisting him for marriage but the appellant denied as his marriage is already solemnized in the year 2023. Later on, on the basis of incorrect facts, FIR in case of question was lodged implicating all the family members of the appellant. He further submits that her statements under Section 180 and 183 of BNS were recorded and there is a major contradiction in her statements. He next submits that there is no evidence of abortion was provided by the complainant to the investigating officer. He also submits that the appellant was taken into custody on 6.10.2024, charge sheet has already been filed and the trial is not going on, all these aspects were not considered by the court below and rejected the bail application, therefore, kind indulgence of this Court is necessary.

¶17

Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the prayer of appellant but he does not dispute this fact that there is contradiction in the statements of victim recorded under Sections 180 and 183 of BNS.

¶18

Considering the submissions of learned counsel for the parties, going through the contents of impugned order as well as FIR and other relevant material and contradiction in the statements of the victim recorded under Sections 180 and 183 of BNS, this Court is of the view that learned trial court is failed to consider the aforesaid aspects, hence, the aforesaid impugned order is liable to be set aside and appellant is entitled to be released on bail.

¶19

Resultantly, in the above facts and circumstances of the case, the trial of the case is not likely to be concluded in near future, hence, the present appeal has substance, and it is accordingly allowed , and the impugned order dated 6.12.2024 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Barabanki in Bail Application No. 3772/2024 arising out of Case Crime No. 414/2024 under Sections 64(2)(m), 316(2), 352 of BNS and Section 3(1)da, 3(1)dha, 3(2)(v) of SC/ST Act, Police Station- Tikaitnagar, District- Barabanki is hereby set aside.

¶20

Let the appellant- Lavlesh 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:-

¶21

(1) The appellant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he will not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for

¶22

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.

¶23

(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 229A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶24

(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 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 174-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶25

(iv) The appellant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed.

¶26

In case of breach of any of the conditions, it shall be ground for cancellation of bail.

¶27

Order Date :- 11.3.2025 AKK

¶28

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

Lavlesh Yadav v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Lavlesh Yadav v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

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

Smt. Arti Thru. Her Husband Sri Shailesh Kumar @ Shailendra Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Superintendent of Police Pratapgarh and 3 Others

Smt. Sita Yadav Vs Addl. Principal JUDGE-4, Family Court, Distt. Lucknow and Another

Master Rishab Krishna Thru. His Natural Guardian (Father) Krishnapal and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 4 Others

Sandeep Rajkumar Vs Shalini Rajkumar

Najim Khan Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Sectt. Lko and Another

Kasim Khan Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Lko. and Another