Rameshwar Singh Yadav v. Party

1. Heard Sri Syed Imran Ibrahim, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Manish Goyal, learned Additional Advocate General assisted by Sri Arvind Kumar, learned AGA for the State and Sri Tushar Krishnani, learned counsel for the informant.

2. The instant bail application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No.792 of 2023, under Sections 504, 506, 342, 376-D, 377 IPC, Sections 5/6 POCSO Act and Sections 3(2)(5), 3(1)(r,s) of S.C./S.T. Act, Police Station Kotwali Nagar, District Etah, during pendency of the trial. Arguments advanced on behalf of the applicant:-

3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that FIR of the present case was lodged on 7th November, 2023 against the applicant and six others and according to the FIR, on 29th January, 2016 at about 9:30 A.M. in the morning when informant went at the house of the applicant for work then he committed rape upon her and also used caste related words and thereafter his brother i.e. co-accused Jugendra Singh Yadav also committed rape upon her and when she tried to make complaint to other co-accused then they threatened her but entire allegations levelled against the applicant are totally false. 2 BAIL No. 21878 of 2024

4. He further submits that FIR of the present case was lodged on 7th November, 2023 i.e. after more than seven and half years from the date of alleged rape and this fact itself suggests that on the basis of false allegations, applicant has been made accused in the present matter along with six others and no reliance can be placed on such belated FIR.

5. He further submits that however victim reiterated the version of the FIR in her both statements recorded under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. but considering the fact that there is delay of more than seven and half years in lodgement of the FIR of the present case, no reliance can be placed on her version.

6. He further submits that even story narrated by the victim does not appear to be convincing.

7. He further submits that however, apart from the present case, applicant is having criminal history of 100 cases but his criminal history has been explained in the instant bail application and in 20 cases, he has been acquitted, in 25 cases final reports have been submitted, which have also been accepted by the court, six cases have become infructuous by efflux of time, 14 cases have been withdrawn with the leave of the Court, in three cases applicant has been exonerated, five cases have been wrongly shown against him and in three cases proceedings have been stayed by this Court. He next submits, merely on the basis of such criminal antecedents, bail application should not be withheld specially considering the fact that prima- facie allegations levelled in the given case appear to be false.

8. He further submits that applicant is in jail in the present matter for last more than one and half years. Arguments advanced on behalf of the State and learned counsel for the informant:-

9. Per contra; learned A.A.G. and learned counsel for informant opposed the prayer for bail and submits that it is a case of gang rape and applicant and his brother i.e. co-accused Jugendra Singh Yadav committed rape upon the victim, who was innocent lady and she in her both the statements recorded under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. reiterated the version of the FIR.

10. They further submit that as applicant is having criminal history of 100 cases therefore, due to his influence and fear earlier FIR could not be lodged.

11. They further submit that applicant is hardened criminal who is having 3 BAIL No. 21878 of 2024 criminal history of 100 cases to his credit and he is history-sheeter. He further submits, from the criminal history of applicant, it reflects, he indulged in anti social activities since 1980. They further submits, at the time of deciding bail application, criminal history of an accused is very relevant and ordinarily a man who is having such huge criminal history of 100 cases should not be released on bail.

12. They further submit, therefore, considering the fact that it is a case of gang rape and applicant is having criminal history of 100 cases, he does not deserve bail. Analysis:-

13. I have heard both the parties and perused the record of the case.

14. However, it appears to be a case of gang rape and as per allegation, applicant and his brother i.e. co-accused Jugendra Singh Yadav committed rape upon the informant and she also in her both the statements recorded under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. reiterated the version of the FIR but it reflects, as per the victim rape was committed upon her on 29th January, 2016 but FIR was lodged on 7th November, 2023 i.e. after more than seven and half years, therefore, there is inordinate delay in lodgement of the FIR of the present case and this casts serious doubt on the case of prosecutrix.

15. Further, however, applicant is having criminal history of 100 cases and as per prosecution due to his fear earlier FIR could not be lodged but considering the fact that there is delay of more than seven and half years in lodging the FIR, it cannot be said that only due to fear of the applicant earlier informant could not lodge the FIR of the present case, especially considering the fact that number of FIRs were being lodged against him even before the year 2023.

16. Further, however, apart from the present case, applicant is having criminal history of 100 cases but it reflects, his criminal history has been explained in the instant bail application. It appears, in 20 cases, he has been acquitted, in 25 cases final reports have been submitted, which have been accepted by the court, six cases have become infructuous by efflux of time, 14 cases have been withdrawn with the leave of the Court, in three cases applicant has been exonerated, five cases have been wrongly shown against him and in three cases proceedings pending against the applicant have been stayed by this Court and in remaining majority of cases, applicant is on bail.

17. Further, however, this Court finds merit in the arguments advanced by 4 BAIL No. 21878 of 2024 learned A.A.G. that at the time of hearing of bail application, criminal history of an accused is relevant but law is settled, if otherwise case of bail is made out then ordinarily bail application should not be withheld merely on the basis of criminal antecedents.

18. The Apex Court in case of Ayub Khan Vs. State of Rajasthan 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3763 in para 10 observed as under:- "10. The presence of the antecedents of the accused is only one of the several considerations for deciding the prayer for bail made by him. In a given case, if the accused makes out a strong prima facie case, depending upon the fact situation and period of incarceration, the presence of antecedents may not be a ground to deny bail. There may be a case where a Court can grant bail only on the grounds of long incarceration. The presence of antecedents may not be relevant in such a case. In a given case, the Court may grant default bail. Again, the antecedents of the accused are irrelevant in such a case. Thus, depending upon the peculiar facts, the Court can grant bail notwithstanding the existence of the antecedents. ...……..."

19. Further, applicant is in jail in the present matter for last more than one and half years.

20. Therefore, considering the observation made by Supreme Court in case of Ayub Khan (supra) and period of incarceration of applicant in the present case, in view of this Court, it is not proper to withheld the bail application merely on the ground that applicant is having criminal history of 100 cases.

21. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstance of the case discussed above, in my view, applicant is entitled to be released on bail.

22. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the instant bail application is allowed.

23. Let the applicant- Rameshwar Singh Yadav, be released on bail in the aforesaid case on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:- (i) The applicant shall appear before the trial court on the dates fixed, unless his personal presence is exempted. (ii) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly, make inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or any police officer or tamper with the evidence. 5 BAIL No. 21878 of 2024 (iii) The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal and anti-social activity.

24. In case of breach of any of the above condition, the prosecution will be at liberty to move an application before this Court for cancellation of the bail of the applicant.

25. It is clarified that the observations made herein are limited to the facts brought in by the parties pertaining to the disposal of bail application and the said observations shall have no bearing on the merits of the case during trial. September 24, 2025 Zafar (Sameer Jain,J.) MOHAMMAD ZAFAR ANSARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

1. Heard Sri Syed Imran Ibrahim, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Manish Goyal, learned Additional Advocate General assisted by Sri Arvind Kumar, learned AGA for the State and Sri Tushar Krishnani, learned counsel for the informant.

2. The instant bail application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No.792 of 2023, under Sections 504, 506, 342, 376-D, 377 IPC, Sections 5/6 POCSO Act and Sections 3(2)(5), 3(1)(r,s) of S.C./S.T. Act, Police Station Kotwali Nagar, District Etah, during pendency of the trial. Arguments advanced on behalf of the applicant:-

3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that FIR of the present case was lodged on 7th November, 2023 against the applicant and six others and according to the FIR, on 29th January, 2016 at about 9:30 A.M. in the morning when informant went at the house of the applicant for work then he committed rape upon her and also used caste related words and thereafter his brother i.e. co-accused Jugendra Singh Yadav also committed rape upon her and when she tried to make complaint to other co-accused then they threatened her but entire allegations levelled against the applicant are totally false. 2 BAIL No. 21878 of 2024

4. He further submits that FIR of the present case was lodged on 7th November, 2023 i.e. after more than seven and half years from the date of alleged rape and this fact itself suggests that on the basis of false allegations, applicant has been made accused in the present matter along with six others and no reliance can be placed on such belated FIR.

5. He further submits that however victim reiterated the version of the FIR in her both statements recorded under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. but considering the fact that there is delay of more than seven and half years in lodgement of the FIR of the present case, no reliance can be placed on her version.

6. He further submits that even story narrated by the victim does not appear to be convincing.

7. He further submits that however, apart from the present case, applicant is having criminal history of 100 cases but his criminal history has been explained in the instant bail application and in 20 cases, he has been acquitted, in 25 cases final reports have been submitted, which have also been accepted by the court, six cases have become infructuous by efflux of time, 14 cases have been withdrawn with the leave of the Court, in three cases applicant has been exonerated, five cases have been wrongly shown against him and in three cases proceedings have been stayed by this Court. He next submits, merely on the basis of such criminal antecedents, bail application should not be withheld specially considering the fact that prima- facie allegations levelled in the given case appear to be false.

8. He further submits that applicant is in jail in the present matter for last more than one and half years. Arguments advanced on behalf of the State and learned counsel for the informant:-

9. Per contra; learned A.A.G. and learned counsel for informant opposed the prayer for bail and submits that it is a case of gang rape and applicant and his brother i.e. co-accused Jugendra Singh Yadav committed rape upon the victim, who was innocent lady and she in her both the statements recorded under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. reiterated the version of the FIR.

10. They further submit that as applicant is having criminal history of 100 cases therefore, due to his influence and fear earlier FIR could not be lodged.

11. They further submit that applicant is hardened criminal who is having 3 BAIL No. 21878 of 2024 criminal history of 100 cases to his credit and he is history-sheeter. He further submits, from the criminal history of applicant, it reflects, he indulged in anti social activities since 1980. They further submits, at the time of deciding bail application, criminal history of an accused is very relevant and ordinarily a man who is having such huge criminal history of 100 cases should not be released on bail.

12. They further submit, therefore, considering the fact that it is a case of gang rape and applicant is having criminal history of 100 cases, he does not deserve bail. Analysis:-

13. I have heard both the parties and perused the record of the case.

14. However, it appears to be a case of gang rape and as per allegation, applicant and his brother i.e. co-accused Jugendra Singh Yadav committed rape upon the informant and she also in her both the statements recorded under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. reiterated the version of the FIR but it reflects, as per the victim rape was committed upon her on 29th January, 2016 but FIR was lodged on 7th November, 2023 i.e. after more than seven and half years, therefore, there is inordinate delay in lodgement of the FIR of the present case and this casts serious doubt on the case of prosecutrix.

15. Further, however, applicant is having criminal history of 100 cases and as per prosecution due to his fear earlier FIR could not be lodged but considering the fact that there is delay of more than seven and half years in lodging the FIR, it cannot be said that only due to fear of the applicant earlier informant could not lodge the FIR of the present case, especially considering the fact that number of FIRs were being lodged against him even before the year 2023.

16. Further, however, apart from the present case, applicant is having criminal history of 100 cases but it reflects, his criminal history has been explained in the instant bail application. It appears, in 20 cases, he has been acquitted, in 25 cases final reports have been submitted, which have been accepted by the court, six cases have become infructuous by efflux of time, 14 cases have been withdrawn with the leave of the Court, in three cases applicant has been exonerated, five cases have been wrongly shown against him and in three cases proceedings pending against the applicant have been stayed by this Court and in remaining majority of cases, applicant is on bail.

17. Further, however, this Court finds merit in the arguments advanced by 4 BAIL No. 21878 of 2024 learned A.A.G. that at the time of hearing of bail application, criminal history of an accused is relevant but law is settled, if otherwise case of bail is made out then ordinarily bail application should not be withheld merely on the basis of criminal antecedents.

18. The Apex Court in case of Ayub Khan Vs. State of Rajasthan 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3763 in para 10 observed as under:- "10. The presence of the antecedents of the accused is only one of the several considerations for deciding the prayer for bail made by him. In a given case, if the accused makes out a strong prima facie case, depending upon the fact situation and period of incarceration, the presence of antecedents may not be a ground to deny bail. There may be a case where a Court can grant bail only on the grounds of long incarceration. The presence of antecedents may not be relevant in such a case. In a given case, the Court may grant default bail. Again, the antecedents of the accused are irrelevant in such a case. Thus, depending upon the peculiar facts, the Court can grant bail notwithstanding the existence of the antecedents. ...……..."

19. Further, applicant is in jail in the present matter for last more than one and half years.

20. Therefore, considering the observation made by Supreme Court in case of Ayub Khan (supra) and period of incarceration of applicant in the present case, in view of this Court, it is not proper to withheld the bail application merely on the ground that applicant is having criminal history of 100 cases.

21. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstance of the case discussed above, in my view, applicant is entitled to be released on bail.

22. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the instant bail application is allowed.

23. Let the applicant- Rameshwar Singh Yadav, be released on bail in the aforesaid case on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:- (i) The applicant shall appear before the trial court on the dates fixed, unless his personal presence is exempted. (ii) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly, make inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or any police officer or tamper with the evidence. 5 BAIL No. 21878 of 2024 (iii) The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal and anti-social activity.

24. In case of breach of any of the above condition, the prosecution will be at liberty to move an application before this Court for cancellation of the bail of the applicant.

25. It is clarified that the observations made herein are limited to the facts brought in by the parties pertaining to the disposal of bail application and the said observations shall have no bearing on the merits of the case during trial. September 24, 2025 Zafar (Sameer Jain,J.) MOHAMMAD ZAFAR ANSARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad