Laxman Yadav v. State of U.P. and another)

2. Heard Sri Sanjay Mishra, Advocate holding brief of Sri Sunil Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Shashi Kant Pandey, learned counsel for the State and perused the record.

3. Notice was issued to the first informant vide order dated

05.11.2024 by this Court.

4. As per office report dated 04.01.2025, notice has been served on the first informant personally, despite service of notice, no one appears on his behalf.

5. The present application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicant Laxman Yadav with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No.35 of 2021, under Sections 363, 366, 376 I.P.C. Section 3/4 The Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, registered at Police Station Jangipur, District Ghazipur, during the pendency of trial.

6. This is the second bail application. The first bail application of the applicant was rejected by this Court vide order dated

31.03.2022 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.49027 of 2021 (Laxman Yadav vs. State of U.P. and another).

7. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is submitted that the trial in the present matter has started in which first informant Prabhu Nath Gupta has been examined as P.W.-1 whereas, the victim has been examined as P.W.-2 before the trial court wherein, the victim was subsequently after cross-examination has been declared as hostile. It is submitted that as such the implication of the applicant in the present case is false. It is submitted that the applicant is in jail since 06.03.2021.

8. Per contra, learned counsel for the State vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that the first informant has supported the prosecution case in his statement recorded before the trial court. It is submitted that further the victim had also supported the prosecution case but subsequently, after cross-examination, she stated that the applicant did not allure her and take her away and thus, she was declared hostile. It is submitted that the statement of the victim is a minor girl. It is further submitted that the same goes to show that there has been tampering with evidence. It is submitted that as such the prayer for bail be rejected.

9. After hearing the counsels for the parties and perusing the record, it is evident that the first bail application of the applicant was rejected by this Court vide order dated 31.03.2022. The said order reads as under :- "Heard Sri Kamlesh Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri A. L. Yadav, Advocate holding brief of Sri Awadhesh Kumar Malviya, learned counsel for the first informant, Sri B.B. Upadhyay, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material on record. This bail application under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the applicant Laxman Yadav, seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No. 35 of 2021, under Sections 363, 366, 376 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 POCSO Act, registered at P.S. Jangipur, District Ghazipur. Learned counsel for the applicant argued that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is argued that initially the F.I.R. was lodged under Sections 363, 366 I.P.C. but later on during investigation Sections 376 I.P.C. and 3/4 POCSO Act have been added in the case. It is argued that from perusal of the statements of the prosecutrix under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C., it is apparent that she went with the applicant out of her own sweet will. It is argued that the doctor has opined the radiological age of the prosecutrix to be between 14 years to 17 years. Further it is argued that the prosecutrix is a consenting party and it is a case of consent. The applicant is having no criminal history as stated in para- 17 and is in jail since 06.3.2021. Per contra, learned A.G.A. and learned counsel for the first informant opposed the prayer for bail and it is argued that the prosecutrix is a minor as in the F.I.R. itself her age has been disclosed as 13 years. Even the doctor has opined the radiological age of the prosecutrix to be between 14 years to 17 years and as such she is a minor. It is argued that the applicant is named by the prosecutrix and there are allegation against him in the statements of the prosecutrix under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. After having heard learned counsels for the parties and perusing the record, it is apparent that the prosecutrix is a minor and consent of a minor is of no worth. There are allegations against the applicant in the statements of the prosecutrix under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. Looking to fact and circumstances of the case, nature of evidence and gravity of offence, I do not find it a fit case to release the applicant on bail. Accordingly, the bail application is rejected."

10. The victim is a minor girl. The first informant in the trial has supported the prosecution case. Subsequently, the victim also in the trial initially supported the prosecution case but lastly in the cross-examination stated that she was a love with the applicant and he did not allure her and take her away and thus she was declared hostile. The same is for the trial court to appreciate at the stage of trial. The release of the applicant at this stage may not be in the fitness of things. No ground for bail is made out.

11. Accordingly, the present bail application is rejected. (Samit Gopal,J.) MANOJ KUMAR YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad Order Date :- 24.2.2025 / Manoj

2. Heard Sri Sanjay Mishra, Advocate holding brief of Sri Sunil Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Shashi Kant Pandey, learned counsel for the State and perused the record.

3. Notice was issued to the first informant vide order dated

05.11.2024 by this Court.

4. As per office report dated 04.01.2025, notice has been served on the first informant personally, despite service of notice, no one appears on his behalf.

5. The present application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicant Laxman Yadav with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No.35 of 2021, under Sections 363, 366, 376 I.P.C. Section 3/4 The Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, registered at Police Station Jangipur, District Ghazipur, during the pendency of trial.

6. This is the second bail application. The first bail application of the applicant was rejected by this Court vide order dated

31.03.2022 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.49027 of 2021 (Laxman Yadav vs. State of U.P. and another).

7. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is submitted that the trial in the present matter has started in which first informant Prabhu Nath Gupta has been examined as P.W.-1 whereas, the victim has been examined as P.W.-2 before the trial court wherein, the victim was subsequently after cross-examination has been declared as hostile. It is submitted that as such the implication of the applicant in the present case is false. It is submitted that the applicant is in jail since 06.03.2021.

8. Per contra, learned counsel for the State vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that the first informant has supported the prosecution case in his statement recorded before the trial court. It is submitted that further the victim had also supported the prosecution case but subsequently, after cross-examination, she stated that the applicant did not allure her and take her away and thus, she was declared hostile. It is submitted that the statement of the victim is a minor girl. It is further submitted that the same goes to show that there has been tampering with evidence. It is submitted that as such the prayer for bail be rejected.

9. After hearing the counsels for the parties and perusing the record, it is evident that the first bail application of the applicant was rejected by this Court vide order dated 31.03.2022. The said order reads as under :- "Heard Sri Kamlesh Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri A. L. Yadav, Advocate holding brief of Sri Awadhesh Kumar Malviya, learned counsel for the first informant, Sri B.B. Upadhyay, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material on record. This bail application under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the applicant Laxman Yadav, seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No. 35 of 2021, under Sections 363, 366, 376 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 POCSO Act, registered at P.S. Jangipur, District Ghazipur. Learned counsel for the applicant argued that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is argued that initially the F.I.R. was lodged under Sections 363, 366 I.P.C. but later on during investigation Sections 376 I.P.C. and 3/4 POCSO Act have been added in the case. It is argued that from perusal of the statements of the prosecutrix under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C., it is apparent that she went with the applicant out of her own sweet will. It is argued that the doctor has opined the radiological age of the prosecutrix to be between 14 years to 17 years. Further it is argued that the prosecutrix is a consenting party and it is a case of consent. The applicant is having no criminal history as stated in para- 17 and is in jail since 06.3.2021. Per contra, learned A.G.A. and learned counsel for the first informant opposed the prayer for bail and it is argued that the prosecutrix is a minor as in the F.I.R. itself her age has been disclosed as 13 years. Even the doctor has opined the radiological age of the prosecutrix to be between 14 years to 17 years and as such she is a minor. It is argued that the applicant is named by the prosecutrix and there are allegation against him in the statements of the prosecutrix under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. After having heard learned counsels for the parties and perusing the record, it is apparent that the prosecutrix is a minor and consent of a minor is of no worth. There are allegations against the applicant in the statements of the prosecutrix under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. Looking to fact and circumstances of the case, nature of evidence and gravity of offence, I do not find it a fit case to release the applicant on bail. Accordingly, the bail application is rejected."

10. The victim is a minor girl. The first informant in the trial has supported the prosecution case. Subsequently, the victim also in the trial initially supported the prosecution case but lastly in the cross-examination stated that she was a love with the applicant and he did not allure her and take her away and thus she was declared hostile. The same is for the trial court to appreciate at the stage of trial. The release of the applicant at this stage may not be in the fitness of things. No ground for bail is made out.

11. Accordingly, the present bail application is rejected. (Samit Gopal,J.) MANOJ KUMAR YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad Order Date :- 24.2.2025 / Manoj