High Court
Case Details
Applicant :- Ankur Yadav @ Nitin Kumar Yadav Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Of Home Lko And 4 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Alok Kr. Misra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Santosh Kumar Srivastava Hon'ble Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J. Heard. This Court has passed the order dated 30.01.2025, which reads as under:- "Counter affidavit filed on behalf of the State is taken on record. Heard Sri Alok Kr. Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA for the State and Sri Santosh Kumar Srivastava, who has filed his vakalatnama on behalf of the opposite party nos. 4 and 5 as both are one and same person. The present applicant is in jail since 29.09.2024 in case crime no. 255 of 2024 under Sections 69, 70(1), 191(2), 115(2), 352, 351(2), 351(3) of B.N.S. and Section 5/6 of the POCSO Act at P.S. Malipur District Ambedkarnagar. As per the allegation of the FIR, the present applicant has established physical relation with the prosecutrix on the pretext of false promise of marriage. The learned counsel for the applicant has stated that on the basis of specific statement of his client that he has not made any false promise of marriage, rather he is willing to get married with her and if he is released on bail, he shall immediately get married with her. The learned counsel has also stated that presently the applicant is 24 years of age and the prosecutrix is 22 years old and both are major. So as to verify the aforesaid fact, the present of the prosecutrix would be required. Sri Santosh Kumar Srivastava has filed vakalatnama on behalf of the prosecutrix, therefore, he is directed to produce the prosecutrix before this Court on the next date. Since, the present applicant is in jail, therefore, his presence is also required on the next date, as to whether the statement so recorded on his behalf is correct or not, therefore, the present applicant may be enlarged on interim bail till the next date of listing. Till the next date of listing, in the event of arrest, the accused-applicant (Ankur Yadav @ Nitin Kumar Yadav) shall be released forthwith in the aforesaid complaint case (supra) on interim anticipatory bail on furnishing a personal bond with two sureties of Rs. 20,000/- on the following conditions:- (i) that the applicant shall appear before the court concerned on each date fixed unless his personal presence is exempted; (ii) that 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 from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence; (iii) that the applicant shall not leave India without prior permission of the court; (iv) that the applicant shall not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witnesses and shall not tamper with evidence during trial; (v) that in case of breach of any of the above conditions the court below shall have the liberty to cancel the bail; (vi) that in default of any of the conditions mentioned above, the learned counsel for the State shall be at liberty to file appropriate application for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to the applicant. On the next date, the present applicant shall also appear in person. In case, he flouts any condition of the bail order or tries to influence any of the witnesses or prosecutrix, this interim bail may be cancelled on the next date. Considering the conduct of the applicant, this bail application may be decided finally on the next date. List on 20.02.2025. In the meantime, the learned counsel for the prosecutrix may also file counter affidavit. When the case is next listed, the name of Sri Santosh Kumar Srivastava shall be printed in the cause list as counsel for the opposite party." Vide order dated 06.02.2025, the aforesaid order dated 30.01.2025 was modified, which reads as under:- "Order on Correction Application Heard Mr. Alok Kr. Mishra, the learned counsel for applicant and the learned A.G.A. for State. This correction application has been filed by applicant seeking correction in the order dated 30.01.2025. Learned counsel for applicant contends that in eight paragraph of the order dated 30.01.2025, the description has wrongly been transcribed as "interim anticipatory bail", whereas the correct description is "interim bail". He therefore submits that the aforesaid mistake occurring in the eight paragraph of the order dated 30.01.2025 be corrected accordingly. Prayer made by the learned counsel for applicant is bona-fide. Same is not opposed by the learned A.G.A. Accordingly it is allowed. It is thus provided that in paragraph eight of the order dated 30.01.2025, in place of the description "till the next date of listing, in the event of arrest, the accused-applicant (Ankur Yadav @ Nitin Kumar Yadav) shall be released forthwith in the aforesaid complaint case (supra) on interim anticipatory bail", shall be read as "till the next date of listing, the accused-applicant, namely, Ankur Yadav @ Nitin Kumar Yadav shall be released forthwith on interim bail". This correction shall form part of the earlier order dated 30.01.2025. With the aforesaid directions, this correction application stands finally disposed off. " In compliance of the aforesaid order, Ankur Yadav @ Nitin Kumar Yadav along with the prosecutrix are present in the Court. Both have stated that they are willing to get married as early as possible, thereafter they shall get their marriage registered before the marriage registering authority. The prosecutrix has categorically stated that she has no grievance against the present applicant as she is in affairs with him, and she shall marry with him. Both the parties have further submitted that both are major persons and can take their decision without being influenced from other parties. The applicant has undertaken that he shall take care of the prosecute properly and shall provide all necessary means which are required to any person. Learned AGA has stated that since the FIR has been lodged, wherein, the allegations have been levelled, therefore, any appropriate order may be passed in the interest of prosecution. Having considered the submission of the learned counsel for the parties and also the statement of the parties who are present in the court, I find it appropriate that the aforesaid interim bail order may be made absolute. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed on the same terms and conditions which have been indicated in the aforesaid order dated 30.01.2025. Sureties which has been filed by the applicant may be treated as sufficient as he need not furnish fresh sureties. It is expected that the party shall get married at the earliest, preferably, within a period of one month. Thereafter, they shall get their marriage registered and such marriage registration certificate shall be shown to the learned trial Court and the learned trial Court shall keep the photocopy of the marriage registration certificate on record. Order Date :- 20.2.2025 Anurag
Applicant :- Ankur Yadav @ Nitin Kumar Yadav Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Of Home Lko And 4 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Alok Kr. Misra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Santosh Kumar Srivastava Hon'ble Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J. Heard. This Court has passed the order dated 30.01.2025, which reads as under:- "Counter affidavit filed on behalf of the State is taken on record. Heard Sri Alok Kr. Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA for the State and Sri Santosh Kumar Srivastava, who has filed his vakalatnama on behalf of the opposite party nos. 4 and 5 as both are one and same person. The present applicant is in jail since 29.09.2024 in case crime no. 255 of 2024 under Sections 69, 70(1), 191(2), 115(2), 352, 351(2), 351(3) of B.N.S. and Section 5/6 of the POCSO Act at P.S. Malipur District Ambedkarnagar. As per the allegation of the FIR, the present applicant has established physical relation with the prosecutrix on the pretext of false promise of marriage. The learned counsel for the applicant has stated that on the basis of specific statement of his client that he has not made any false promise of marriage, rather he is willing to get married with her and if he is released on bail, he shall immediately get married with her. The learned counsel has also stated that presently the applicant is 24 years of age and the prosecutrix is 22 years old and both are major. So as to verify the aforesaid fact, the present of the prosecutrix would be required. Sri Santosh Kumar Srivastava has filed vakalatnama on behalf of the prosecutrix, therefore, he is directed to produce the prosecutrix before this Court on the next date. Since, the present applicant is in jail, therefore, his presence is also required on the next date, as to whether the statement so recorded on his behalf is correct or not, therefore, the present applicant may be enlarged on interim bail till the next date of listing. Till the next date of listing, in the event of arrest, the accused-applicant (Ankur Yadav @ Nitin Kumar Yadav) shall be released forthwith in the aforesaid complaint case (supra) on interim anticipatory bail on furnishing a personal bond with two sureties of Rs. 20,000/- on the following conditions:- (i) that the applicant shall appear before the court concerned on each date fixed unless his personal presence is exempted; (ii) that 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 from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence; (iii) that the applicant shall not leave India without prior permission of the court; (iv) that the applicant shall not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witnesses and shall not tamper with evidence during trial; (v) that in case of breach of any of the above conditions the court below shall have the liberty to cancel the bail; (vi) that in default of any of the conditions mentioned above, the learned counsel for the State shall be at liberty to file appropriate application for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to the applicant. On the next date, the present applicant shall also appear in person. In case, he flouts any condition of the bail order or tries to influence any of the witnesses or prosecutrix, this interim bail may be cancelled on the next date. Considering the conduct of the applicant, this bail application may be decided finally on the next date. List on 20.02.2025. In the meantime, the learned counsel for the prosecutrix may also file counter affidavit. When the case is next listed, the name of Sri Santosh Kumar Srivastava shall be printed in the cause list as counsel for the opposite party." Vide order dated 06.02.2025, the aforesaid order dated 30.01.2025 was modified, which reads as under:- "Order on Correction Application Heard Mr. Alok Kr. Mishra, the learned counsel for applicant and the learned A.G.A. for State. This correction application has been filed by applicant seeking correction in the order dated 30.01.2025. Learned counsel for applicant contends that in eight paragraph of the order dated 30.01.2025, the description has wrongly been transcribed as "interim anticipatory bail", whereas the correct description is "interim bail". He therefore submits that the aforesaid mistake occurring in the eight paragraph of the order dated 30.01.2025 be corrected accordingly. Prayer made by the learned counsel for applicant is bona-fide. Same is not opposed by the learned A.G.A. Accordingly it is allowed. It is thus provided that in paragraph eight of the order dated 30.01.2025, in place of the description "till the next date of listing, in the event of arrest, the accused-applicant (Ankur Yadav @ Nitin Kumar Yadav) shall be released forthwith in the aforesaid complaint case (supra) on interim anticipatory bail", shall be read as "till the next date of listing, the accused-applicant, namely, Ankur Yadav @ Nitin Kumar Yadav shall be released forthwith on interim bail". This correction shall form part of the earlier order dated 30.01.2025. With the aforesaid directions, this correction application stands finally disposed off. " In compliance of the aforesaid order, Ankur Yadav @ Nitin Kumar Yadav along with the prosecutrix are present in the Court. Both have stated that they are willing to get married as early as possible, thereafter they shall get their marriage registered before the marriage registering authority. The prosecutrix has categorically stated that she has no grievance against the present applicant as she is in affairs with him, and she shall marry with him. Both the parties have further submitted that both are major persons and can take their decision without being influenced from other parties. The applicant has undertaken that he shall take care of the prosecute properly and shall provide all necessary means which are required to any person. Learned AGA has stated that since the FIR has been lodged, wherein, the allegations have been levelled, therefore, any appropriate order may be passed in the interest of prosecution. Having considered the submission of the learned counsel for the parties and also the statement of the parties who are present in the court, I find it appropriate that the aforesaid interim bail order may be made absolute. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed on the same terms and conditions which have been indicated in the aforesaid order dated 30.01.2025. Sureties which has been filed by the applicant may be treated as sufficient as he need not furnish fresh sureties. It is expected that the party shall get married at the earliest, preferably, within a period of one month. Thereafter, they shall get their marriage registered and such marriage registration certificate shall be shown to the learned trial Court and the learned trial Court shall keep the photocopy of the marriage registration certificate on record. Order Date :- 20.2.2025 Anurag