SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Sonu Yadav @ Shyamu Singh vs State Of U.P. on 3 March, 2020


?Court No. – 12

Case :- BAIL No. – 1244 of 2020

Applicant :- Sonu Yadav @ Shyamu Singh

Opposite Party :- State of U.P.

Counsel for Applicant :- Dileep Kumar Yadav,Om Prakash Yadav,Ramesh Kumar

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

Hon’ble Mrs. Rekha Dikshit,J.

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that accused applicant has falsely been implicated in the present case. It is further submitted that initially the first information report was lodged under Section 354 I.P.C., subsequent statement of the mother, father and the prosecutrix herself recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. by the Investigating Officer also indicate offence under Section 354 I.P.C. only. The statement of the prosecutrix recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. was recorded after a lapse of ten days, in which first time the offence under Section 376 I.P.C. has been levelled against the applicant. It is also submitted that the medical evidence do not support the prosecution case and the radiological age of the prosecutrix is 18 years and educational 16 years. No other incriminating evidence against the applicant is available on record. The accused applicant is languishing in jail since 06.12.2019. It is next submitted that the applicant is neither a previous convict nor he has any criminal history. It is further submitted that there is no possibility of the applicant of fleeing away from judicial custody or tampering with the witnesses. In case the applicant is enlarged on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail.

Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the aforesaid facts as argued by the learned counsel for the applicant.

Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case and considering the nature of accusation and the severity of punishment in case of conviction and the nature of supporting evidence, reasonable apprehension of tempering of the witnesses and prima facie satisfaction of the Court in support of the charge, the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in this case.

Let the applicant involved in Case Crime No.241 of 2018, under Sections 376, 323, 506 I.P.C. 3/4 of P.O.C.S.O. Act, Police Station Sidhauli, District Sitapur 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 with the following conditions which are being imposed in the interest of justice:-

(i) 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.

(ii) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code.

(iii) 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.

(iv) 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.

Order Date :- 3.3.2020

Anupam S/-



Leave a Reply

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

Copyright © 2023 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