Allowed

Aakeshwar Yadav @ Aakheshwar Yadav @ Anuj Yadav v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC17 Oct 2024MCRC/6365/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Chhattisgarh allowed a second bail application filed by an accused charged with rape and murder. The court noted the negative DNA report and lack of direct evidence, exercising discretion to grant bail upon furnishing a bond and surety, subject to court appearance conditions.

What did the court decide?

Regular bail granted upon furnishing a bond of Rs. 25,000 with one surety, subject to specific conditions regarding court appearances.

Aakeshwar Yadav @ Aakheshwar Yadav @ Anuj Yadav Vs… — Bail and Remand | Chhattisgarh HC (2024)

2024:CGHC:41145

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

MCRC No. 6365 of 2024

¶6

1 - Aakeshwar Yadav @ Aakheshwar Yadav @ Anuj Yadav S/o Surajdev Aged About 24 Years R/o Village - Jokapath Tutdipa Police Station Shankargarh, District Balrampur-Ramanujganj Chhattisgarh (Correct Name Mentioned)

¶7

... Applicant

¶8

versus

¶9

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station - Shankargarh, District - Balrampur-Ramanujganj Chhattisgarh

¶10

... Non-applicant

¶11

For Applicant	: Mr. Amarnath Pandey, Advocate
For State	: Mr. Rishabh Bisen, Panel Lawyer

¶12

(Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge)

¶13

Order on Board

¶14

18/10/2024

¶15

Applicant has filed this second bail application under Section 483 of B.N.S.S., 2023 for grant of regular bail as he was arrested in connection with Crime No. 162 of 2023 registered at Police Station – Shankargarh, District – Balrampur-Ramanujganj, Chhattisgarh for the offences punishable under Sections 305 & 376 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and under Section 04 of the P.O.C.S.O. Act, 2012.

¶16

Case of the prosecution is that, on 20.07.2023, victim / deceased has informed her father and mother in the morning at about 09:00 on mobile phone that applicant has committed forceful sexual intercourse

¶17

¶18

with her and thereafter she committed suicide. Merg was reported to the concerned Police Station and during course of investigation, based on the statement recorded of witnesses under Section 161 of Cr.P.C., applicant was arrested on 09.10.2023.

¶19

Learned counsel for applicant submits that applicant is innocent and he has not committed any offence as alleged. He has been falsely implicated in the aforementioned crime. There is no direct evidence against applicant of committing forceful sexual intercourse with deceased. He also submits that applicant has been made accused on the basis of statement of father and mother of deceased that deceased has informed them on the mobile phone of commission of forceful sexual intercourse by applicant. There is no material to prove the said fact in the charge-sheet. He further contended that DNA test report is negative and therefore applicant cannot be connected with the aforementioned crime. Applicant is in jail since 09.10.2023, hence, he may be enlarge on bail.

¶20

On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the submission made by learned counsel for the applicant and would submit that there are material to suggest that in the night, applicant stayed in the house of deceased and in the said night, applicant committed forceful sexual intercourse with deceased, which she narrated to her parents through mobile phone and accordingly, they have stated the same in their statement recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. He do not dispute the submission made by learned counsel for applicant with respect to DNA

¶21

¶22

report to be negative. Upon asking whether Police has seized any electronic evidence or CDR to say that there was any mobile call given by victim / deceased to her parents, he submits that no such material is available in the case diary / charge-sheet.

¶23

I have heard learned counsel for the respective parties.

¶24

Taking into consideration facts and circumstances of the case, nature of allegation, submission of learned counsel for the respective parties, in particular, submission of the counsel for the applicant that DNA report is negative, without commenting anything on the merits of the case, I am inclined to allow this application for grant of bail.

¶25

Accordingly, the bail application is allowed. It is directed that the applicants shall be released on regular bail, upon furnishing a bail bond in the sum of Rs. 25,000/- with one surety in the like sum to the satisfaction of the Court on the conditions that -

¶26

(a) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he 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.

¶27

(b) 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 under Section 269 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.

¶28

(c) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure her presence, proclamation under Section 84 of BNSS. 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

¶29

¶30

with law, under Section 209 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.

¶31

(d) 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 351 of BNSS. 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 proceed against him in accordance with law.

¶32

Office is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith.

¶33

Certified copy as per rules.

¶34

Sd/- ( Parth Prateem Sahu ) JUDGE

¶35

Shayna

Aakeshwar Yadav @ Aakheshwar Yadav @ Anuj Yadav v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Aakeshwar Yadav @ Aakheshwar Yadav @ Anuj Yadav v. State of Chhattisgarh

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

Similar cases

Ku. Onkar Thawait Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Kirtan Kumar Rathore Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Manikram Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Santosh Kumar Dewangan Vs State of Chhattisgarh

V. v. Malaiya Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Supriya Bhagat Vs State of Chhattisgarh