Karan Yadav vs State Of U.P. And Another
2025 Latest Caselaw 8299 ALL

Allahabad High Court

Karan Yadav vs State Of U.P. And Another on 30 June, 2025

Author: Rajeev Misra

Bench: Rajeev Misra

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 


?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:100659
 
Court No. - 65
 

 
Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 515 of 2025
 

 
Appellant :- Karan Yadav
 
Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another
 
Counsel for Appellant :- Aman Patel,Neeraj Singh Yadav
 
Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
 

 
Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.
 

1. Heard Mr. Neeraj Singh Yadav, the learned counsel for the appellant and learned A.G.A. for the State-opposite party no.1.

2. Perused the record.

3. On the matter being taken up the learned AGA submits that notice of this appeal has already been served upon first informant-opposite party no.2 on 09.02.2025. However, in spite of service of notice neither any counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of first informant-opposite party no.2 in opposition to the prayer for bail nor any-one has put in appearance on his behalf to oppose this appeal even in revised call.

4. Appellant Karan Yadav has approached this Court by means of present appeal seeking his enlargement on bail in Case Crime No. 174 of 2024, under Sections 308(2), 140(1), 64(1), 115(2), 351(3), 127(2), 61(2), 123 of B.N.S. and Section 3(2)(v) SC/ST Act, P.S. Chandauli, District Chandauli during the pendecy of trial.

5. Learned counsel for appellant submits that though appellant is named and chargesheeted accused yet appellant is liable to be enlarged on bail. Appellant and prosecutrix are major. Appellant and prosecutrix were in consensual physical relationship for more than one and a half years. Since the prosecutrix was major, therefore, she clearly understood the nature of the relationship she was about to enter with the appellant.

6. It is then contended that appellant has already solemnized marriage with the prosecutrix. However, there is no denial of marriage nor there is anything on record to show that proceedings have been initiated for declaration of marriage as void in terms of Section 11 of the Hindu Marriage Act. He therefore, submits that once the appellant has solemnized marriage with the prosecutrix and the prosecutrix is now the legally wedded wife of the appellant, therefore by reason of the law laid down by the Apex Court in K. Dhandapani Vs. State by the Inspector of Police, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1056 and Mafat Lal and Another Vs. State of Rajasthan, (2022) 6 SCC 589 and Shriram Urav Vs. State of Chhattisgarh, Criminal Appeal No. 41 of 2021.

7. Even otherwise, appellant is a man of clean antecedents inasmuch as, he has no criminal history to his credit except the present one. Appellant is in jail since 04.08.2024. As such, he has undergone almost 11 months of incarceration. The charge sheet/police report in terms of Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. has already been submitted, therefore, the entire evidence sought to be relied upon by the prosecution against appellant stands crystallized. However, up to this stage, no such circumstance has emerged on record necessitating the custodial arrest of appellant during the pendency of trial. On the above premise, the learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant is liable to be enlarged on bail during the pendency of trial. In case, the appellant is enlarged on bail then in that eventuality, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail and shall co-operate with the trial.

8. Per contra, the learned A.G.A. for State-opposite party-1 has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail. He submits that since appellant is a named and charge sheeted accused, therefore, he does not deserve any indulgence by this Court. The prosecutrix in her statements under Section 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. has clearly implicated the appellant in the crime in question. Appellant is guilty of dislodging the modesty of the prosecutrix forcibly and deliberately. As such the criminality alleged to have been committed by appellant is not only illegal but also immoral. In fact it is a crime against society.

9. On the other premise the learned AGA submits there is no good ground as emerged on record so as to enlarge the appellant on bail. However, he could not dislodge the factual and legal submissions urged by the learned counsel for appellant in support of the present appeal with reference to the record at this stage.

10. Having heard, the learned counsel for appellant, the learned A.G.A. for State-opposite party-1, upon perusal of record, evidence, nature and gravity of offence, accusations made, complicity of court finds that appellant is a named and charge-sheeted accused, however, the prosecutrix is major, she knowingly entered physical consensual physical relationship with the appellant, the parties were in consensual relationship for more than one and a half years, it is the case of the appellant that he has solemnized the marriage with the prosecutrix therefore, by reason of above, the prosecturix is now the legally wedded wife of the appellant, in view of the law laid down by the Apex court in the cases of K. Dhandapani (Supra), Mafat Lal (Supra) and Shriram Urav (Supra), the criminality alleged to have been committed by appellant shall stand washed off and therefore, the prosecution of appellant cannot be sustained any further, no proceedings have been initiated by the prosecutrix in terms of Section 11 of the Hindu Marriage Act for declaration of his marriage with appellant as void, the police report in terms of Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. having already been submitted, therefore, the entire evidence sought to be relied upon by the prosecution against appellant stands crystallized, yet in spite of above, the learned A.G.A. could not point out any such circumstance from the record necessitating the custodial arrest of appellant during the pendency of trial, the judgment of Supreme Court in Sumit Subhashchandra Gangwal Vs. State of Maharashtra, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 373 (Paragraph 5), the clean antecedents of appellant inasmuch as appellant has no criminal history to his credit except the present one, the period of incarceration undergone, therefore, irrespective of the objections raised by the learned A.G.A. for State-opposite party-1 in opposition to the present appeal, but without making any comments on the merits of the case, appellant has made out a case for bail.

11. Accordingly, the present appeal is allowed.

12. Let the appellant-Karan Yadav, be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions which are being imposed in the interest of justice:-

(i) THE APPELLANT SHALL FILE AN UNDERTAKING TO THE EFFECT THAT HE/SHE SHALL NOT SEEK ANY ADJOURNMENT ON THE DATE FIXED FOR EVIDENCE WHEN THE WITNESSES ARE PRESENT IN COURT. IN CASE OF DEFAULT OF THIS CONDITION, IT SHALL BE OPEN FOR THE TRIAL COURT TO TREAT IT AS ABUSE OF LIBERTY OF BAIL AND PASS ORDERS IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW.

(ii) THE APPELLANT-APPELLANT SHALL REMAIN PRESENT BEFORE THE TRIAL COURT ON EACH DATE FIXED, EITHER PERSONALLY OR THROUGH HIS/HER COUNSEL. IN CASE OF HIS/HER ABSENCE, WITHOUT SUFFICIENT CAUSE, THE TRIAL COURT MAY PROCEED AGAINST HIM/HER UNDER SECTION 229-A IPC.

(iii) IN CASE, THE APPELLANT MISUSES THE LIBERTY OF BAIL DURING TRIAL AND IN ORDER TO SECURE HIS/HER PRESENCE PROCLAMATION UNDER SECTION 82 CR.P.C., MAY BE ISSUED AND IF APPELLANT FAILS TO APPEAR BEFORE THE COURT ON THE DATE FIXED IN SUCH PROCLAMATION, THEN, THE TRIAL COURT SHALL INITIATE PROCEEDINGS AGAINST HIM/HER, IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW, UNDER SECTION 174-A IPC.

(iv) THE APPELLANT SHALL REMAIN PRESENT, IN PERSON, BEFORE THE TRIAL COURT ON DATES FIXED FOR (1) OPENING OF THE CASE, (2) FRAMING OF CHARGE AND (3) RECORDING OF STATEMENT UNDER SECTION 313 CR.P.C. IF IN THE OPINION OF THE TRIAL COURT ABSENCE OF THE APPELLANT IS DELIBERATE OR WITHOUT SUFFICIENT CAUSE, THEN IT SHALL BE OPEN FOR THE TRIAL COURT TO TREAT SUCH DEFAULT AS ABUSE OF LIBERTY OF BAIL AND PROCEED AGAINST THE HIM/HER IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW.

(v) THE TRIAL COURT MAY MAKE ALL POSSIBLE EFFORTS/ENDEAVOUR AND TRY TO CONCLUDE THE TRIAL WITHIN A PERIOD OF ONE YEAR AFTER THE RELEASE OF THE APPELLANT.

13. However, it is made clear that any wilful violation of above conditions by the appellant, shall have serious repercussion on his bail so granted by this Court and the trial court is at liberty to cancel the bail, after recording the reasons for doing so, in the given case of any of the condition mentioned above.

Order Date :- 30.6.2025

Neeraj