Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2025 DAILYLAW 167828 (ALL)

SHIV NATH YADAV v. STATE OF U.P. THRU. PRIN. SECY. DEPTT. OF HOME LKO AND 3 OTHERS

BAIL/11634/2024 · 2025-05-21

Subhash Vidyarthi

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:30196 Court No. - 15 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 11634 of 2024 Applicant :- Shiv Nath Yadav Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Home Lko And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Mukesh Kumar Shukla,Pawan Kumar Pandey,Ram Kumar Shukla,Vittan Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Suresh Kumar Yadav Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,J. 1. Heard Sri Pawan Kumar Pandey, the learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Satyendra Srivastava, the learned A.G.A. for the State and Ms. Aradhna Mishra, Advocate holding brief of Suresh Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for the informant and perused the record. 2. The instant application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 360 of 2024, under Sections 376(2)(N), 506 I.P.C. and Section 5(I)/6 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act and Section 3(2)(V) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Act, registered at Police Station Asandara, District Barabanki. 3. The aforesaid case has been registered on the basis of F.I.R. lodged on 20.09.2024 against the applicant and his family members, stating that the applicant used to talk to the informant's daughter aged 18 years for the past four years, he repetitively made physical relations with her due to which she has four months pregnancy. 4. In the statement of the victim recorded under Section 180 B.N.S.S., she stated that she is in a loving relationship with the applicant for the past four years, the applicant repetitively made physical relations under allurement of marrying her. The applicant had forcibly made physical relations with her about four months ago due to which she became pregnant. Thereafter, the applicant and his family members did not agree for her marriage with the applicant. 5. As per educational certificate, the date of birth of the victim is 03.02.2006. 6. The medico legal examination report of the victim mentions that she was having 17 weeks and two days pregnancy. The victim gave a similar statement to the doctor at the time of the medico legal examination. 7. Before the magistrate also, the victim stated that the applicant used to make physical relations under a promise of marrying her, but when she got pregnant, the applicant stopped communicating with her and when her mother went to the applicant's house, they threatened her, hurled casteist abuses 8. In the affidavit filed in support of the bail application, it has been stated that the applicant is an innocent person and he has been falsely implicated in the present case. 9. The State has filed a counter affidavit annexing therewith copies of material collected during investigation and a copy of the charge-sheet dated 25.10.2024. The applicant's involvement in three other cases has been disclosed in the counter affidavit. 10. Rejoinder affidavit has been filed on behalf of the applicant stating that the applicant has been granted bail in all the other criminal cases in which he has been involved. 11. Having considered the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view the fact the F.I.R was lodged on 20.09.2024 as well as in the statement of the victim, it has been stated that the applicant was in a relationship with the victim for the past four years; the victim has stated that the applicant has repetitively made physical relations with her during this period under allurement of marrying her; the date of birth of the victim, is 03.02.2006, from which it appears that the applicant has been making physical relations since she was minor; the applicant has left the victim after impregnating her under allurement of marrying her, which allegation prima facie make out a commission of offence under section 69 B.N.S and it carries imprisonment which may extend to 10 years and that the applicant is involved in three other criminal cases, I am of the considered view that the aforesaid facts do not warrant exercise of discretion of this Court in favour of the applicant by enlarging the applicant on bail. 12. Accordingly, this bail application stands rejected. (Subhash Vidyarthi,J.) Order Date :- 21.5.2025 Preeti. Digitally signed by :- PREETI GAUTAM High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench