Allahabad High Court
SUJEET YADAV ALIAS DEVNATH YADAVversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS
- Decided
- Bench
- SAMEER JAIN
Holding
The applicant is entitled to be released on bail.
Summary
Sujeet Yadav was arrested in connection with a case involving alleged sexual offences against a 13‑year‑8‑month‑old girl, charged under several IPC sections, the POCSO Act, the Information Technology Act and the SC/ST Act. The victim’s statements recorded under Sections 180 and 183 of the BNSS did not name Yadav as the perpetrator and instead implicated co‑accused Pradeep Kumar for the rape. Yadav contended that he was falsely implicated because of his friendship with Pradeep Kumar and pointed out the absence of any video evidence. Although Yadav has a prior criminal case, the bail application explained his history and noted that he had been in custody since 29‑08‑2025. The court, after noting the lack of a direct rape allegation against Yadav and the possibility of false implication, held that he was entitled to bail, subject to standard conditions.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted to the accused despite serious charges under the POCSO Act and IPC sections.
- Whether the absence of a direct rape allegation against the accused in the victim’s statements warrants bail.
- Whether the possibility of false implication based on the accused’s relationship with a co‑accused affects the bail decision.
- Whether the accused’s prior criminal history and period of pre‑trial detention preclude bail.
Legislation cited
- Indian Penal Code — s. 137(2), 308(2), 70(2), 76
- Information Technology Act — s. 66E
- Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act — s. 5G, 6
- Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act — s. 3(2)V
Subjects
- bail
- POCSO
- rape allegation
- false implication
- criminal history
- victim statement
- IPC sections
- conditions of bail
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 41993 of 2025
Sujeet Yadav Alias Devnath Yadav
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 3 Others
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Piyush Tripathi
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 67
HON'BLE SAMEER JAIN, J.
1. Notice was issued to the informant on 27.11.2025. Despite service of
notice none present on behalf of informant.
2. Supplementary affidavit filed by the applicant is taken on record.
3. Heard Sri Piyush Tripathi, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Rajni
Kant Rai, learned AGA for the State.
4. The instant bail application has been filed seeking release of the applicant
on bail in Case Crime No. 102 of 2025, under Sections 137(2), 76, 70(2),
308(2) BNS, Section 5G/6 POCSO Act, Section 66E I.T. Act and Section
3(2)V SC/ST Act, Police Station Whyndhamganj, District Sonbhadra during
pendency of the trial.
5. Learned counsel for the applicant submits, as per school record, victim
was about 13 years 8 months old but she did not even disclose the name of
applicant in her statement recorded under Section 180 BNSS.
6. He further submits, even from her statement recorded under Section 183
BNSS it reflects, there is no allegation of rape against applicant and
according to victim co-accused Pradeep Kumar committed rape upon her.
7. He further submits, however, as per statement of the victim recorded
under Section 183 BNSS applicant made video of the victim but during
investigation no such video of the victim could be recovered. He further
submits, as applicant is friend of co-accused Pradeep Kumar, therefore, he
has been made accused in the present matter.
BAIL No. 41993 of 2025
2
8. He further submits, apart from the present case applicant is having
criminal history of one another case but his criminal history has been
explained in the instant bail application and in the present matter he is in jail
since 29.08.2025 i.e. for last more than six months.
9. Per contra, learned AGA opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute
the argument on facts advanced by learned counsel for the applicant.
10. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the
case.
11. However, victim appears to be 13 years 8 months old girl but there is no
allegation of rape against applicant even in the statement of victim recorded
under Section 183 BNSS and according to this statement co-accused Pradeep
Kumar committed rape upon her.
12. Further, victim in her earlier statement recorded under Section 180
BNSS did not disclose the name of applicant and she stated that she loved
the co-accused Pradeep Kumar and wanted to perform marriage with him.
13. Further, considering the fact that applicant is friend of co-accused
Pradeep Kumar, the reason of false implication of the applicant disclosed by
learned counsel for applicant, cannot be ruled out at this stage.
14. Further, however, apart from the present case applicant is having
criminal history of one another case but his criminal history has been
explained in the instant bail application and in the present matter he is in jail
since 29.08.2025 i.e. for last more than six months.
15. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case discussed
above, in my view, applicant is entitled to be released on bail.
16. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case,
the instant bail application is allowed.
17. Let the applicant -Sujeet Yadav @ Devnath Yadav be released on bail
in the aforesaid case on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in
the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following
conditions:-
(i) The applicant shall appear before the trial court on the dates fixed, unless
his personal presence is exempted.
BAIL No. 41993 of 2025
3
(ii) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly, make inducement, threat or
promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade
him from disclosing such facts to the Court or any police officer or tamper
with the evidence.
(iii) The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal and anti-social activity.
18. In case of breach of any of the above condition, the prosecution will be
at liberty to move an application before this Court for cancellation of the
bail of the applicant.
19. It is clarified that the observations made herein are limited to the facts
brought in by the parties pertaining to the disposal of bail application and the
said observations shall have no bearing on the merits of the case during trial.
March 18, 2026
AK Pandey
(Sameer Jain,J.)
Digitally signed by :-
ANUPAM KUMAR PANDEY
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…