VoxJuris
Home › High Courts › Allahabad High Court 2023 › High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

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

Allowed/Partly Allowed on merits
Court
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Decided
31 October 2023
Case no.
BAIL 44839/2023

Judgment

Court No. - 66 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 44839 of 2023 Applicant :- Amit Yadav Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Dhirendra Pratap Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Ajay Bhanot,J. Shri Suchit Tandon, learned AGA for the State 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.440 of 2023 at Police Station-Chauri Chaura, District-Gorakhpur under Sections 376, 323, 504, 506 IPC and 5/6 of POCSO Act. The applicant is in jail since 24.09.2023. The bail application of the applicant was rejected by the learned trial court on 05.10.2023. The following arguments made by Shri Dhirendra Pratap Singh, learned counsel on behalf of the applicant, which could not be satisfactorily refuted by Shri Suchit Tandon, learned AGA 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 in the prosecution case 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 in her statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. has stated that she is 20 years of age while in the statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. she is 17 years of age.

(iii) 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.

¶4Delay in lodgement of the F.I.R. in the facts and circumstances of this case is fatal to the prosecution case.

¶5The victim and the applicant were intimate.

¶6The F.I.R. is the result of a relationship between the applicant and victim going awry.

¶7The applicant never gave a plighted word to marry the victim.

¶8The criminal proceedings are being leveraged to force the applicant to marry her.

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

¶10Prosecution evidence does not connect the applicant with the offence.

¶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-Amit 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 :- 1.11.2023 Dhananjai High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Source: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, through the eCourts High Court services, via the Indian High Court Judgments open dataset by Dattam Labs (CC BY 4.0). Text was extracted from the official PDF and may contain conversion errors. Check the official PDF before relying on it.