Yogendra Yadav v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Court No. - 66 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 43955 of 2023 Applicant :- Yogendra Yadav Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Avinash Kumar Tripathi,Nagendra Kumar Tripathi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Gaurav Tiwari,Renu Swarnkar Hon'ble Ajay Bhanot,J. Shri Paritosh Kumar Malviya, learned AGA-I contends that the police authorities in compliance of the directions issued by this Court in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 46998 of 2020 (Junaid Vs State of U.P. and another) reported at 2021 (6) ADJ 511 and with a view to implement the provisions of POCSO Act, 2012 read with POCSO Rules, 2020, have served the bail application upon the victim/legal guardian as well as upon the CWC. By means of the bail application the applicant has prayed to be enlarged on bail in Case Crime No. 297 of 2023 at Police Station-Ahirauli Bazar, District-Kushinagar under Sections 363, 366, 376 IPC and Section 3/4 POCSO Act. The applicant is in jail since 08.08.2023. The bail application of the applicant was rejected by the learned trial court on 29.08.2023. The following arguments made by Shri Nagendra Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel on behalf of the applicant, which could not be satisfactorily refuted by Shri Gaurav Tiwari, learned counsel on behalf of the applicant and Shri Paritosh Kumar Malviya, learned AGA-I from the record, entitle the applicant for grant of bail:

¶1Learned counsel for the applicant contests the minority of the victim as depicted in the prosecution case.

¶2The victim was wrongly shown as a minor of 18 years in the F.I.R. only to falsely implicate the applicant under the stringent provisions of the POCSO Act and cause his imprisonment.

¶3Learned counsel for the applicant contests the age of the victim set out in the prosecution case in light of the judgement of this Court in Monish Vs. State of U.P. and others (Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 55026 of 2021) and on the following grounds:

(i) There are material contradictions in the age of the victim as recorded in various prosecution documents.

(ii) The victim under in her statements under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. has stated that she is 20 and 17 years of age respectively. No medical examination to determine the correct age of the victim as per the latest scientific criteria and medical protocol by eminent doctors from a reputed institution was got done by the prosecution as it would establish the majority of the victim and falsify the prosecution case. The victim is in fact a major.

¶4The victim and the applicant were intimate.

¶5The FIR is a result of opposition of the victim's family members to the said relationship.

¶6The victim in her statements under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. has admitted to intimacy with the applicant. She has further asserted that she left for Delhi of her own free will. Thereafter, she accompanied the applicant to Lucknow and got married to him of her own volition. The two have been residing together in a rented accommodation.

¶7No allegation of abduction, wrongful detention and commission of rape has been made by the victim against the applicant in the aforesaid statement.

¶8The victim was never confined or bound down in any manner. The victim travelled to various public places but never raised an alarm nor did she resist the applicant. The conduct of the victim shows that she was a consenting party.

¶9Medical evidence to corroborate commission of rape by the applicant with the victim has not been produced by the prosecution.

¶10Major inconsistencies in the statements of the victim under Sections 161 Cr.P.C. and Section 164 Cr.P.C. as well as the recitals in the F.I.R. discredit the prosecution case.

¶11The applicant does not have any criminal history apart from this case.

¶12The applicant is not a flight risk. The applicant being a law abiding citizen has always cooperated with the investigation and undertakes to join the trial proceedings. There is no possibility of his influencing witnesses, tampering with the evidence or reoffending. In the light of the preceding discussion and without making any observations on the merits of the case, the bail application is allowed. Let the applicant-Yogendra Yadav be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number, on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court below. The following conditions be imposed in the interest of justice:-

(i) The applicant will not tamper with the evidence or influence any witness during the trial.

(ii) The applicant will appear before the trial court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted. Order Date :- 16.10.2023 Jaswant High Court of Judicature at Allahabad