Allahabad High Court
Rakesh Yadav And 3 Others vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others on 11 April, 2023
Bench: Krishan Pahal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 79
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 15106 of 2023
Applicant :- Rakesh Yadav And 3 Others
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others
Counsel for Applicant :- Ugrasen Kumar Pandey,Ragini Pandey
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.
1. List has been revised.
2. As informed by the learned A.G.A., notice to the informant has been served on 29.3.2023.
3. Heard Shri Ugrasen Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the applicants as well as Shri D.N. Tiwari, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
4. Applicants seek bail in Case Crime No.191 of 2022, under Sections 323, 504, 506, 376(D)A I.P.C. and 5G/6 POCSO Act, Police Station Chitwaragaon, District Ballia, during the pendency of trial.
5. As per prosecution story, one Manoj Yadav, the applicants Rakesh Yadav, Pankaj Yadav and Mukur Yadav are stated to have assaulted the daughter of the informant and a relative Shiv Shanker on 24.12.2022 at about 07:00 p.m. The FIR was instituted on 26.12.2022 at about 16:53 hours.
6. Learned counsel for the applicants has stated that the applicants are absolutely innocent and have been falsely implicated in the present case. Initially, the FIR was instituted under Sections 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. only and later on after legal consultation the prosecution story has been inflated to Sections 376-D I.P.C. and 5G/6 POCSO Act. Learned counsel has stated that the FIR itself is delayed by two days and there is no explanation of the said delay caused. Learned counsel has placed much reliance on the injury report of two injured persons, whereby only pain has been observed to the injured person Shiv Shanker and no injury on any parts of the body of the victim, daughter of the informant, has been found. It has been stated that the victim was in love with other injured Shiv Shanker. Learned counsel has stated that the applicant no.4 Rohit Yadav was not even named in the FIR and his name has come up later on during investigation.
7. Learned counsel for the applicants has further stated that as per the ossification test report, the age of the victim has been found to be between 17-18 years and as per the school certificate, the age of the victim is stated to be 16 years, 4 months and 14 days. Learned counsel has placed much reliance on the judgment of Apex Court in Sushil Kumar vs. Rakesh Kumar, (2003) 8 SCC 673, wherein it has been stated that it is more often in the Indian Society that person shows the age of their wards much below than their actual age. In the case of Brij Mohan Singh vs. Priya Brat Narain Sinha, AIR 1965 SC 282, this Court, inter alia, observed that in actual life it often happens that persons give false age of the boy at the time of his admission to a school so that later in life he would have an advantage when seeking public service for which a minimum age for eligibility is often prescribed. Several other submissions have been made on behalf of the applicants to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against them. The circumstances which, as per counsel, led to the false implication of the applicants have also been touched upon at length. There is no criminal history of the applicants. The criminal history of two cases of the applicant nos.1 & 2 has been explained and both the cases are bailable. The applicants are languishing in jail since 30.12.2022. In case, the applicants are released on bail, they will not misuse the liberty of bail.
8. Per contra, learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the bail application but could not dispute that the prosecution version has kept on changing at different occasions.
9. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, the evidence on record, taking into consideration that initially the FIR was instituted under Sections 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. only and later on the case has been inflated and also there is delay in lodging the FIR, and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court is of the view that the applicants have made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed.
10. Let the applicants- Rakesh Yadav, Pankaj Yadav, Manjit Yadav @ Mukur Yadav and Rohit Yadav involved in aforementioned case crime number be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two heavy sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions.
(i) The applicants will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.
(ii). The applicants will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness.
(iii) The applicants will appear before the trial court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted.
(iv) The applicants shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which they are accused, or suspected of the commission of which they are suspected.
(v) The applicants shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade them from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.
11. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail. Identity, status and residence proof of the applicants and sureties be verified by the court concerned before the bonds are accepted.
12. It is made clear that observations made in granting bail to the applicants shall not in any way affect the learned trial Judge in forming his independent opinion based on the testimony of the witnesses.
[Krishan Pahal, J.]
Order Date :- 11.4.2023
Vikas
