Allowed

Sonu Yadav v. State

Delhi HC18 Jul 2024BAIL APPLN./730/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a bail application under Section 439 CrPC regarding FIR No. 608/2020 involving Sections 376/506 IPC and Section 06 POCSO Act, the court granted regular bail to the petitioner after considering his incarceration for over three years and the final stage of the trial, subject to specific conditions including a personal bond, non-contact with the prosecutrix, and movement restrictions.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner admitted to bail on a personal bond of Rs. 20,000 with one surety, subject to conditions of appearance, mobile number reporting, no contact with witnesses, and no departure from the country

Sonu Yadav Vs State — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Delhi HC (2024)

¶1

$~20

¶2

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- BAIL APPLN. 730/2024

¶4

SONU YADAV .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Gaurav Tyagi, Mr. Abhishek Khare, Mr. Deepanshu, Mr. Jatin Nagar and Mr. Gaurav Bidhuri, Advocates. versus STATE .....Respondent Through: Mr. Hemant Mehla, APP for the State with SI Ankur, PS Mundka. Ms. Astha, Advocate (DHCLSC) with victim.

¶5

CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA

O R D E R

18.07.2024

The Application under Section 439 of CrPC has been filed on behalf of the petitioner, for grant of Regular Bail in FIR No. 608/2020 under Sections 376/506 IPC and 06 POCSO Act, registered at Police Station Mundka.

¶10

It is submitted that the petitioner is 20 years old person who is a daily wager and had no criminal antecedents. At the time of the alleged incident, he was 19 years old boy. He is a peace-loving and law-abiding citizen of India having deep roots in the society belonging to a financially poor but respectful family with no criminal antecedents. The FIR got registered against him under Sections 376/506 IPC and 06 POCSO Act, on 29.12.2020.

¶11

This is a digitally signed order.

¶12

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 02/07/2025 at 01:37:27

¶13

The investigations have already been completed and the Charge-Sheet has been filed. The examination of all the witnesses has been completed. The petitioner is in jail since last more than three years. It is, therefore, submitted that he be granted bail.

¶14

Learned APP for the State, submits that the prosecutrix has fully supported the case of the prosecution and her testimony is fully corroborated by the FSL Report. The bail is, therefore, opposed. The complainant is present in the Court along with the learned counsel. It is submitted that considering the tender age of the prosecutrix, the bail be denied to the petitioner.

¶15

Submissions heard.

¶16

The petitioner was a young boy of 19 years while the complainant also was 15 years old. The prosecution witnesses have been examined. Considering the incarceration of the petitioner for last about 3 years and also that the trial is at its final stage, the petitioner is admitted to bail on the following conditions:-

¶17

a) The petitioner/accused shall furnish a personal bond of Rs.20,000/- and one surety of the like amount, subject to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court.

¶18

b) The petitioner/accused shall appear before the Court as and when the matter is taken up for hearing.

¶19

c) The petitioner/accused shall provide mobile number to the IO concerned which shall be kept in working condition at all times and he shall not change the mobile number, without prior intimate to the Investigating Officer concerned.

¶20

d) The petitioner/accused shall not indulge in any criminal activity

¶21

This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 02/07/2025 at 01:37:27

¶22

and shall not communicate with or come in contact with the witnesses.

¶23

e) The petitioner/accused shall not leave the country, without permission of this Court.

¶24

f) The petitioner/accused shall not change his residential address and in case of change of the residential address, the same shall be intimated to this Court, by way of affidavit.

¶25

g) The petitioner/accused shall not go near the prosecutrix and would not establish any kind of contact or threat.

¶26

The Petition is disposed of.

¶27

NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA, J

¶28

JULY 18, 2024/RS

¶29

Sonu Yadav v. State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sonu Yadav v. State

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

Kuldeep Vs State NCT of Delhi

Shubham Garg Vs State Gnct of Delhi and Anr.

Karan Singh Vs State of NCT of Delhi

Bhanu Raghav Vs State of NCT of Delhi

G.S. Vs State (Nct of Delhi)

Sanjay Shakya @ Sanju Kumar & Ors. Vs State of NCT of Delhi & Anr.