Mohit Yadav v. State Of U.P. And 3 Others
Case at a glance
Outcome
Bail granted
The bail application is allowed
Provisions considered
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ss. 82, 164, 313
- Constitution of India art. 21
- Indian Penal Code, 1860
- Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 ss. 5, 6
Judgment
Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A for the State. There is allegation of gang rape of minor girl in the FIR after entering into her house by the applicant and another co-accused Counsel for the applicant submits that it is a case of false implication. The victim has not named the applicant in her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. Subsequently, in her majid bayaan she has named the applicant. The victim has admitted talking with the applicant and accused persons in her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. The medical report does not supports the prosecution case. As per the age certificate of the victim, her age has been found to be 16 years at the time of alleged offence. Given margin of two years on the higher side, she can be considered to be major. The applicant is in jail since 20.07.2021 and has no criminal history to his credit. The trial has not commenced yet.
Operative part
On the other hand learned A.G.A has opposed the prayer for bail. Keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India and the dictum of Apex Court in the case of Dataram Singh Vs. State of U.P. and another reported in (2018) 3 SCC 22 and recent judgment dated 11.07.2022 of the Apex Court in the case of Satendra Kumar Antil vs. C.B.I., passed in S.L.P (Crl.) No. 5191 of 2021 and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed. Let the applicant, Mohit Yadav, involved in Case Crime No. 603 of 2021, under Sections- 452, 376-D, 323 IPC and Section 5/6 of POCSO Act, Police Station- Kotwali Lalitpur, District- Lalitpur, be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions.
Further, before issuing the release order, the sureties be verified.
(i) The applicant shall not tamper with the evidence or threaten the witnesses.
(ii) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates 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.
(iii) The applicant shall remain present before the Trial Court on each date fixed, either personally or as directed by the Court. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the Trial Court may proceed against him under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code.
(iv) In case the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence, proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued and the applicant fails to appear before the Court on the date fixed in such proclamation then the Trial Court shall initiate proceedings against him in accordance with law under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code.
(v) The applicant shall remain present in person before the Trial Court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. If in the opinion of the Trial Court absence of the applicant 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 him in accordance with law. In case, of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail. Identity, status and residence proof of the applicant and sureties be verified by the court concerned before the bonds are accepted. Trial court is directed to conclude the trial of the applicant as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of two years. Order Date :- 30.8.2022 Rohit Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: The bail application is allowed
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — ss. 82, 164, 313; Constitution of India — art. 21; Indian Penal Code, 1860; Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 — ss. 5, 6.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Allahabad High Court, on 30 Aug 2022. The bench was SIDDHARTH.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.