Allahabad High Court
Rajesh Yadav @ Sukkhu vs State Of U.P. on 13 May, 2024
Author: Ajay Bhanot
Bench: Ajay Bhanot
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:85841
Court No. - 64
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 14355 of 2024
Applicant :- Rajesh Yadav @ Sukkhu
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Vivek Kumar Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Ajay Bhanot,J.
By means of the bail application the applicant has prayed to be enlarged on bail in Case Crime No. 81 of 2007 at Police Station- Barsathi, District- Jaunpur under Sections 376, 346, 344, 366, 363 IPC and Section 3/4 of POCSO Act. The applicant is in jail since 04.02.2024.
The bail application of the applicant was rejected by the learned trial court on 13.03.2024.
The following arguments made by Sri Vivek Kumar Singh, learned counsel on behalf of the applicant, which could not be satisfactorily refuted by Sri Niraj Tiwari, learned AGA from the record, entitle the applicant for grant of bail:
1. The applicant has been falsely nominated on account of political rivalry.
2. The victim in fact had eloped with her love interest Radheshyam.
3. The victim in her statement under Sections 161 Cr.P.C. and 164 Cr.P.C. has not identified the applicant as the principal offender who committed rape with her. The applicant was initially chargesheeted under Section 366 IPC in the aforesaid case. The applicant was acquitted by the trial court by judgment and order dated 25.08.2009. Subsequently the victim was recovered and a fresh trial ensued against various accused persons including the applicant.
4. The applicant was not aware of the second trial in which he had been nominated.
5. The victim in her deposition before the trial court has testified that she has got married to the said Radheyshyam and has been residing with him ever since.
6. The applicant is a law abiding citizen who cooperated in the investigation and has joined the trial proceedings. Even if the prosecution evidence against the applicant does not connect the applicant with the offence.
7. The applicant has explained his criminal history. It is also contended that the applicant has become a soft target and a convenient scapegoat for the police authorities who nominated him in a number of false cases to burnish their professional credentials. The said cases do not have any bearing on the instant bail application.
8. The applicant is not a flight risk. The applicant being a law abiding citizen has always cooperated with the investigation and undertakes to cooperate with the court 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- Rajesh Yadav @ Sukkhu 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.
(iii) The learned trial court is directed to fix the sureties after due application of mind in light of the judgement passed by this Court in Arvind Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. (Application U/S 482 No.2613 of 2023).
The learned trial court shall ensure that the right of bail of the applicant granted by this Court is not frustrated by onerous or arbitrary demands of sureties or onerous conditions which are unrelated to the socioeconomic status of the applicant.
Order Date :- 13.5.2024
Pravin
