Allahabad High Court
SUDHEER YADAV ALIAS DEEPU YADAVversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS
- Decided
- Bench
- VIVEK VARMA
Holding
The applicant is entitled to be released on bail.
Summary
The High Court considered a bail application filed by Sudheer Yadav, who is charged under IPC sections 363, 366, 376, 506 and POCSO Act sections 3 and 4 for alleged offences involving theft, kidnapping, rape and sexual assault. The applicant contended that the victim, a major, had her age incorrectly recorded in school records and that her statements under Sections 161 and 164 of the Cr.P.C. indicated a consensual relationship with no protest or alarm. The State opposed bail but could not produce corroborative evidence linking the applicant to the offences, and the court noted the applicant’s clean criminal record and six‑month pre‑trial detention. Relying on the lack of substantive evidence, the absence of any risk of tampering or intimidation, and the applicant’s right to liberty, the court held that bail was appropriate. The court ordered the applicant’s release on bail subject to a personal bond, two sureties, and conditions to appear in court, not tamper with evidence, and not pressurise witnesses. The prosecution was directed to seek cancellation of bail if any condition is breached.
Issues considered
- Whether the applicant is entitled to bail despite the seriousness of the charges under IPC and POCSO Act
- Whether the victim’s alleged consent and lack of protest negate the necessity for pre‑trial detention
- Whether there is any risk of evidence tampering, witness intimidation or trial delay if bail is granted
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 161, 164
- Indian Penal Code — s. 363, 366, 376, 506
- Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act — s. 3, 4
Subjects
- bail
- consent
- POCSO
- IPC
- criminal procedure
- pre‑trial detention
- evidence
- witness intimidation
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 2679 of 2026
Sudheer Yadav Alias Deepu Yadav
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 3 Others
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Alka, Rakesh Kumar Rathore, Rekha
Sahu
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Akanksha, G.A., Sanjeev Patel
Court No. - 64
HON'BLE VIVEK VARMA, J.
1. Heard counsel for the applicant and Sri Alok Ratna, holding brief of Sri
Sanjeev Patel, counsel for the informant as well as Sri Neeraj Kumar
Sharma, learned A.G.A. for the State. Perused the material available on
record.
2. The present bail application has been filed with a prayer to enlarge the
applicant on bail in Case Crime No.42 of 2023, under Sections 363, 366,
376, 506 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of POCSO Act, Police Station- Mauaima,
District- Prayagraj, during the pendency of trial.
3. Counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely
implicated in the present case. It is contended that the victim is major. The
age of the victim was incorrectly got registered in the school records by the
victim's parents to give her advantage in life. There is no lawful basis for the
age related entry of the victim in the school records. As per the statements of
the victim under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and 164 Cr.P.C., the victim stayed with
the applicant for two days and established relations with him. It is contended
that the victim had not raised any protest or alarm. The conduct of the victim
shows that she was a consenting party. At this stage, there is no
corroborative evidence to link the applicant with the offence. The applicant
is in jail since 15.09.2025 having no criminal antecedents and in case he is
enlarged on bail, he will not misuse the said liberty.
4. Learned A.G.A. and counsel for the informant have opposed the prayer
for bail but could not satisfactorily dispute the aforesaid submissions from
BAIL No. 2679 of 2026
2
the record.
5. Having heard counsel for the parties and having perused the record, this
Court prima facie finds that as per the statements of the victim under Section
161 Cr.P.C. and 164 Cr.P.C., the victim stayed with the applicant for two
days and established relations with him. The victim did not raise any protest
or alarm. The conduct of the victim shows that she was a consenting party.
Further, at this stage, there is no corroborative evidence to link the applicant
with the offence. Moreover, the applicant has no criminal antecedents and
has remained confined for more than six months and after submission of the
charge sheet there is no hope of early conclusion of trial, more so when no
reasonable apprehension has been brought to the fore by the State that the
applicant, if enlarged on bail, would either tamper with the evidence or delay
the trial or intimidate the witness, without commenting on the merits of the
case, I am of the opinion that the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail.
6. Let the applicant Sudheer Yadav Alias Deepu Yadav, involved in the
aforesaid case 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 the conditions that he:
(i) shall appear on the date fixed by the trial court;
(ii) shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence; and,
(iii) shall not pressurize the prosecution witnesses.
7. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the prosecution shall be
at liberty to move bail cancellation application before this Court.
March 19, 2026
Manish Kr
(Vivek Varma,J.)
Digitally signed by :-
MANISH KUMAR
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…