1. Home
  2. /
  3. High Court Of Judicature at Allahabad
  4. /
  5. 2019
  6. /
  7. January

Manoj Yadav vs State Of U P

High Court Of Judicature at Allahabad|29 April, 2019


Court No. - 79
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 10412 of 2019 Applicant :- Manoj Yadav Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Swati Agrawal Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Ram Krishna Gautam,J.
By means of this application the applicant Manoj Yadav has prayed to release him on bail in Case Crime No. 173 of 2018, u/s 354, 376, 506 I.P.C. and 3/4 POCSO Act, P.S. Bhawarkol, District Ghazipur.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned AGA representing the State. Perused the record.
Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the applicant is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in this very case crime number. F.I.R. was got lodged on 8.11.2018 at 20.15 hours upon the report of Ramu Chaudhary, father of prosecutrix, for offences punishable u/s 354, 376, 511, 506 I.P.C. i.e. accusation was for outraging modesty and attempting to commit rape on 8.11.2018 at 11.00 hours and the informant along with prosecutrix had gone to police station for getting the F.I.R. lodged. No accusation of rape or dragging her from one room to another room was there, whereas it was subsequently developed in the statements u/s 161 and 164 Cr.P.C., which was under pressure of her father. Mother of prosecutrix in her statement has categorically stated that the accused-applicant was adamant and was doing this activity for last one year but she was of the view that he will be changed with majority. Sudhanshu Rai, who was said to be an eyewitness in the F.I.R., in his statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C. has said that there has been love affairs between the both and there was pregnancy with abortion of the same. Meaning thereby it was a consensual act, which was subsequently under pressure of her parents was altered in an offence of commission of rape. Accused-applicant is of no criminal antecedent and is languishing in jail. There is no likelihood of applicant's fleeing from course of justice or tempering with evidence in case he is released on bail. Hence bail has been prayed for during trial.
Learned AGA has vehemently opposed the bail application with this contention that the prosecutrix in her statements u/s 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. has categorically said about rape committed by the applicant, which is a heinous offence, hence bail be rejected.
F.I.R. reveals that it was got lodged after having full narration of occurrence by prosecutrix and being in the company of the prosecutrix was at the police station and the accusation was of outraging modesty and attempt of commission of rape, which was subsequently aggravated in commission of rape by prosecutrix and her father. The eyewitness Sudhanshu Rai and mother of prosecutrix have categorically stated about love affairs since long in between the both. Under all above facts and circumstances, the nature of accusations, severity of the punishment in the case of conviction and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this court is of the view that the applicant may be enlarged on bail with certain conditions.
Accordingly, the bail application is allowed.
Let the applicant, Manoj Yadav, involved in above mentioned case crime number be released on bail on his executing a personal bond and two reliable sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to the following conditions:
1. The applicant will not tamper with the evidence.
2. The applicant will not indulge in any criminal activity.
3. The applicant will not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witnesses and co-operate in the trial.
4. The applicant will appear regularly on each and every date fixed by the trial court unless his personal appearance is exempted through counsel by the court concerned.
In the event of breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the court below will be at liberty to proceed to cancel his bail.
Order Date :- 29.4.2019 Pcl
Disclaimer: Above Judgment displayed here are taken straight from the court; Vakilsearch has no ownership interest in, reservation over, or other connection to them.

Manoj Yadav vs State Of U P


High Court Of Judicature at Allahabad

29 April, 2019
  • Ram Krishna Gautam
  • Swati Agrawal Srivastava