SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Anil Yadav vs State Of U.P. And Another on 24 October, 2019


?Court No. – 78

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. – 25446 of 2019

Applicant :- Anil Yadav

Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another

Counsel for Applicant :- Riyajuddin Ansari

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Ran Vijay Singh

Hon’ble Siddharth,J.

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Sibli Naseem, Advocate, holding brief of Sri Ran Vijay Singh, learned counsel for the informant and learned A.G.A. for the State.

Submission is that the applicant is in jail since 27.12.2018. The informant and the witness of the incident have been examined as PW I and PW II before the Trial Court. PW III who is the victim has not been examined on account of his tender age. PW I and PW II have not supported the prosecution case, they have been declared hostile by the Court below. The applicant alleges false implication. Applicant has no criminal history to his credit.

On the other hand learned AGA has opposed the prayer for bail.

Keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence on record regarding complicity of the accused, submissions of the learned counsel for the parties noted herein above, larger mandate of the SectionArticle 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 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, Anil Yadav, involved in Case Crime No.260 of 20118, under Sections 377 IPC and Section 5 M / 6 Protection of Children for Sexual Offences Act, 2012, Police Station Madanpur, District- Deoria 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.

1. The applicant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.

2. The applicant will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness.

3. The applicant will appear before the trial court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted.

4. The applicant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which they are accused, or suspected of the commission of which they are suspected.

5. 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 them from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the complainant is free to move an application for cancellation of bail before this court.

Order Date :- 24.10.2019




Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Copyright © 2021 SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Free Legal Help, Just WhatsApp Away

MyNation HELP line

We are Not Lawyers, but No Lawyer will give you Advice like We do

Please read Group Rules – CLICK HERE, If You agree then Please Register CLICK HERE and after registration  JOIN WELCOME GROUP HERE

We handle Women Centric biased laws like False Sectioin 498A IPC, Domestic Violence(DV ACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA 24, 125 CrPc, 307, 312, 313, 323, 354, 376, 377, 406, 420, 497, 506, 509; TEP, RTI and many more…

MyNation FoundationMyNation FoundationMyNation Foundation