Allahabad High Court
Ram Kishore Yadav vs State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Deptt. Of Home ... on 1 February, 2024
Author: Rajeev Singh
Bench: Rajeev Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:9323
Court No. - 13
Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 2413 of 2023
Appellant :- Ram Kishore Yadav
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Deptt. Of Home Lko. And Another
Counsel for Appellant :- Sheikh Abu Huraira Siddiqui,Asim Kumar Singh
Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
Hon'ble Rajeev Singh,J.
(Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.1 of 2023)
1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned A.G.A. for the State.
2. A prayer for bail has been made by the appellant in this criminal appeal, which has been filed against the judgement and order dated 28.07.2023 passed by Additional District and Sessions Judge/Special Judge, POCSO Act, Court No.2, Lucknow in Session Trial No.1121 of 2015, under Sections 376, 506 I.P.C. and Section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST Act and Section 3/4 of POCSO Act, P.S. Mall, District Lucknow.
3. It is evident from the record that notice has already been served on the complainant but no one has put in appearance on behalf of the complainant.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that appellant has been falsely implicated in the present case due to village politics. He further submits that on 7.9.2015, F.I.R. was lodged by giving a typed complaint but neither statement of victim nor the site plan was prepared on the same day and after 60 days, her statements was recorded and there is a contradiction in the name of mother of the victim. He further submits that during the course of trial, appellant was on bail, and the evidences relied by the appellant before the trial court were not appreciated in correct prospective. He further submits that the mandatory provisions of Section 53-A Cr.P.C. as well as Section 164-A Cr.P.C. related to the D.N.A. test was not complied by the prosecution. He further submits that appellant was on bail during the course of trial and there is no possibility of conclusion of trial in near future. It is, thus, submitted that appellant, who is in jail since 28.07.2023, is entitled for bail and the impugned order is liable to be set aside.
5. Learned A.G.A. oppose the prayer of the appellant but he does not dispute this fact that appellant was on bail during the course of trial and there is no evidence about the misuse of liberty of bail.
6. Considering the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant-applicant, learned A.G.A. and going through the record as well as the judgment of the court below, it is evident that appellant was on ball during the course of trial. In such circumstances, this Court is of the view that it would not be appropriate to languish the applicant-appellant in jail till the outcome of the instant appeal.
7. Hence, prima facie, case for bail is made out, at this stage.
8. Accordingly, the application for bail is allowed.
9. Let the applicant-appellant, namely, Ram Kishore Yadav be released on bail on his furnishing personal bonds and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned, subject to following conditions;
(i) The appellant-applicant shall cooperate in the disposal of appeal without seeking unnecessary adjournment.
(ii) The appellant-applicant shall not indulge in any criminal activity or commission of any crime after being released on bail.
10. As soon as personal bonds and sureties are furnished, photocopies of the same are directed to be transmitted to this Court forthwith by the trial court concerned to be kept on record of this appeal.
11. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.
12. It is further directed that the appellant shall deposit the fine amount within two months from the date of release.
Order Date :- 1.2.2024
Gaurav/-
