Allahabad High Court
Vikas Yadav vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others on 14 March, 2023
Bench: Krishan Pahal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 79
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 56262 of 2022
Applicant :- Vikas Yadav
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others
Counsel for Applicant :- Anand Prakash Srivastava,Sugendra Kumar Yadav
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.
1. List has been revised. As informed by learned A.G.A., notice has been served to the informant on 12.12.2022.
2. Heard Sri Arvind Kumar, learned Advocate holding brief for Sri Anand Prakash Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicant as well as Sri R.P. Patel, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 110 of 2020, under Sections 363, 376, 147, 148, 323, 504, 506, 120-B I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of POCSO Act, Police Station Madanpur, District Deoria, during the pendency of trial.
4. As per prosecution story, the applicant is stated to have duped the victim by entering into corporeal relationship with him on the pretext of marrying her later on. The victim is stated to have been impregnated by the applicant in the year 2019 and the said foetus was aborted. The other co-accused persons are stated to have assisted him in concealing the said facts from other persons. The applicant is stated to have taken away the victim to Kalyan, Mumbai and several other places and is stated to have even entered into physical relationship with her thereat. Later on, the applicant is stated to have refused to marry the victim on account of her belonging to different caste.
5. Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that the applicant is absolutely innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case with a view to cause unnecessary harassment and to victimize him. Learned counsel has further stated that Learned counsel has next stated that the victim has not raised any alarm, whatsoever, during her journey to Agra and Mumbai, whereat she is stated to have gone alongwith the applicant. Learned counsel has next stated that the victim herself is married to somebody else in Mumbai and has falsely implicated the applicant.
6. Learned counsel has placed much reliance on the judgments of Apex Court passed in case of Pramod Suryabhan Pawar vs. State of Maharashtra and Another reported in 2019 (9) SCC 608 and Ansaar Mohammad vs. State of Rajasthan and Another, reported in 2022 SCC OnLine SC 886, wherein it has been stated that entering into any kind of corporeal relationship with a person on the pretext of getting marriage cannot be termed as rape. Learned counsel has stated that as per the statement of the victim recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., her age is 18 years on the date she had lodged the FIR, and as per the school certificate also, her age was seventeen years and five months. Learned counsel has next stated that with respect to the age of the victim, a leverage of two years can be granted to the applicant on the upper side in view of the settled law of the Apex Court.
7. Several other submissions have been made on behalf of the applicant to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against him. The circumstances which, as per counsel, led to the false implication of the applicant have also been touched upon at length. There is no criminal history of the applicant. The applicant is languishing in jail since 23.9.2022. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.
8. Per contra, learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the bail application but unable to dispute the submissions raised by the learned counsel for the applicant.
9. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, the evidence on record, pending trial and considering the complicity of accused, severity of punishment, at this stage, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed.
10. Let the applicant- Vikas 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 applicant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.
ii. The applicant will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness.
iii. The applicant will appear before the trial court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted.
iv. The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal activity or commission of any crime after being released on bail.
v. The applicant 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 him 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, the prosecution shall be at liberty to move bail cancellation application before this Court.
12. Identity, status and residence proof of the applicant and sureties be verified by the court concerned before the bonds are accepted.
13. It is made clear that observations made in granting bail to the applicant shall not in any way affect the learned trial Judge in forming his independent opinion on the testimony of the witnesses.
Order Date :- 14.3.2023
Shalini
