# Jasman Singh @ Pappu Yadav (In Jail) v. State of U.P. & Anr

- **Citation:** (2021) 9 ILRA 293
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2021-08-17
- **Case number:** Crl. Misc. Bail Application No. 1665 of 2021
- **Bench:** Sanjay Kumar Singh
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/jasman-singh-pappu-yadav-in-jail-v-state-of-u-p-anr-47571
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

A.G.A., Sri Prashant Kumar Singh

A. Bail - The Court rejected the bail application
on account of rape on minor child and
suppression of his criminal history. (Para 7)

Bail Application Rejected. (E-10)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

9 All. Jasman Singh @ Pappu Yadav Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
293

23. Copy of this judgment along with
lower court record be transmitted to the
learned trial court immediately.
----------
(2021)09ILR A293
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 17.08.2021

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SANJAY KUMAR SINGH, J.

Crl. Misc. Bail Application No. 1665 of 2021

Jasman Singh @ Pappu Yadav
 ...Applicant (In Jail)
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Applicant:
Sri Bhagwan Das Singh

Counsel for the Respondents:
A.G.A., Sri Prashant Kumar Singh

A. Bail - The Court rejected the bail application
on account of rape on minor child and
suppression of his criminal history. (Para 7)

Bail Application Rejected. (E-10)

List of Cases cited:

1. Neeru Yadav Vs St. of U.P. (2015) 3 SCC 527
(followed)

2. Sudha Singh Vs St. of U.P. & anr. 2021 (4)
SCC 781 (followed)

(Delivered by Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar
Singh, J.)

1. Despite being service of notice
upon the informant, no one has put in
appearance on behalf of informant.

2. Heard Mr. Bhagwan Das, learned
counsel for the applicant, Mr. Virendra
Kumar
Maurya,
learned
Additional
Government Advocate assisted by Mr.
Prashant Kumar Singh, learned briefholder, representing the State and perused
the record of the case.

3. By means of this application,
applicant-Jasman Singh alias Pappu Yadav,
who is involved in Case Crime No. 30 of
2019, under sections 323, 376(2)(1), 452
and 506 IPC, and section 3/4 of Protection
of Children From Sexual Offences Act,
police station Jakhaura, district Lalitpur,
seeks enlargement on bail during the
pendency of trial.

4. As per prosecution case, in brief,
Smt. Kalawati, the informant, who is aunt
of the victim lodged first information report
on 17.02.2019 at 1.15 hours in respect of
incident, which took place on 16.02.2019 at
16.30 hours against the applicant alleging
inter alia therein that on 16.02.2019 at
about 4.30 p.m. the victim, aged about 13
years, who after the death of her mother
residing with the informant, was alone in
the house for doing some house-hold work
and all the family members had gone to
agricultural field for cutting fodder. The
applicant taking the advantage of the
situation, forcibly entered into the house of
the informant and threatening to kill the
victim, she was dragged to inside the room
by
grabbing
her
hair,
and
forcibly
committed rape upon the victim. At that
time, suddenly the informant, her son Rohit
and one Magan came to the house and
knocked the door, but when they entered
the house, they saw the victim lying
unconscious in a naked condition and the
applicant tried to fled away by climbing the
wall, but he was caught hold by Rohit,
Magan Vishwakarma, Arjun and Madhav
alias Chotu at the spot. When the victim
gain consciousness, she narrated the whole
294 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
incident.
Thereafter,
the
police
was
informed about the incident on phone by
the family members of the informant, on
which the applicant was arrested by the
police from the house of the informant.

5. It is argued by the learned counsel
for the applicant that there was love affair
between the victim and the applicant. She
herself called the applicant, but he was
caught hold by the family members of the
victim. It is also submitted by the learned
counsel for the applicant that there is also
dispute between the informant and the
applicant regarding the land, therefore, the
applicant has been falsely implicated in the
present case, averment in this regard has
been mentioned in paragraph 14 of the bail
application. It is also submitted that the
applicant has no criminal antecedent to his
credit and is facing detention since
16.02.2019. It is next contended that there
is no chance of the applicant of fleeing
away
from
the
judicial
process
or
tampering with the prosecution evidence.
Learned counsel for the applicant lastly
submitted that if the applicant is released
on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of
bail and will cooperate in the early disposal
of the case.

6. Per contra, learned Additional
Government Advocate has opposed the bail
prayer of the applicant by contending that as
per medical examination report, the victim is
minor child, aged about 13 years. The
applicant has committed rape upon the victim
in her own house and he was apprehended by
the family members of the victim at the spot.
It is also submitted that the victim in her
statement under section 164 Cr.P.C. has
made allegation of committing rape upon her
forcibly by the applicant and also supported
the prosecution case. It is next submitted by
learned A.G.A. that the applicant has a
criminal history of six cases, as mentioned in
bail rejection order of the applicant dated
23.10.2020, but in paragraph 19 of the bail
application, it is mentioned that the applicant
has no criminal history.

7. After having heard the arguments of
learned counsel for the parties, this Court
finds that the applicant has a criminal history
of six cases as mentioned in bail rejection
order of applicant dated 23.10.2020, but in
paragraph 19 of the bail application it is
mentioned that the applicant has no criminal
history, as such the applicant has not come
with clean hands before this Court and
suppressed his criminal history. In paragraph
14 of the bail application, it is mentioned that
there is dispute between the applicant and
informant regarding the land, but no material
in this regard has been brought on record.
The victim, aged about 13 years, is studying
in fifth standard. According to medical
examination report of the victim, all
epiphysis are not fused. In the opinion of the
doctor,
who
conducted
the
medical
examination of the victim, sign of violence
seen and sexual violence cannot be ruled out.
The offence of committing rape upon a minor
child is heinous in nature.

8. In view of judgment of Hon'ble the
Apex Court in the case of Neeru Yadav vs.
State of U.P. (2015) 3 SCC 527, criminal
antecedents of the accused cannot be
ignored while deciding bail application,
discretionary powers of Courts to grant bail
must be exercised in a judicious manner in
case of a habitual offender. The said
judgement has been further followed in a
recent judgment of Apex Court in the case
of Sudha Singh vs. State of U.P. and
another, 2021 (4) SCC 781.

9. In this case, a small innocent girl
has been raped, who does not understand
9 All. Smt. Anita Sharma & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
295
its meaning. Little girls are worshiped in
our country, but the cases of pedophilia are
increasing. Rape is a heinous crime. The
victim suffers from psychological effects of
embarrassment, disgust, depression, guilt
and even suicidal tendencies. Many cases
go unreported. In almost rape cases, the
victim was unwilling to report the name of
the abuser. The families of the victim
remain silent about the sexual offences in
order to protect the family image. The
victim/female
small
child
experience
sexual abuse once tend to be more
vulnerable to abuse in adult life. Healing is
slow and systematic. In such a situation, if
the right decision is not taken from the
Court at the right time, then the trust of a
victim/common man will not be left in the
judicial system. This is the time to strictly
stop this kind of crime.

10. Considering the facts and
circumstances of the case, submissions
advanced on behalf of parties, gravity of
the offence and severity of the punishment,
I do not find any good ground to grant bail
to the applicant.

11. Accordingly, the bail application
is rejected.

12. However, it is clarified that the
observation, if any, made here-in above
shall be strictly confined to the disposal of
the bail application and must not be
construed to have any reflection on the
ultimate merits of the case.

13. Office is directed to send a copy
of this order to the informant of this case
within two weeks.

14. It is directed that in case, certified
copy of this order is not issued due to
COVID-19 pandemic, the copy of the order
downloaded from the official website of the
Allahabad High Court shall be acted upon.
----------
(2021)09ILR A295
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 12.08.2021

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE ARVIND KUMAR MISHRA - I, J.

Crl. Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application No. 9323
of 2021

Smt. Anita Sharma & Anr. ...Applicants
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Applicants:
Sri Rajesh Mishra, Sri Akhilesh Chandra
Shukla

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
A.G.A., Sri Amit Daga, Sri Namman Raj
Vanshi, Sri Onkar Singh, Sri Sachin Malik,
Sri Vipul Shukla

A.
Anticipatory
Bail
-
The
Court
rejected the anticipatory bail application
on finding that offence committed prima
facie is found to be intentional, for the
reason that the first information report
contains specially the very cell phone
number by which the victim/ deceased
was called at the house of the applicant
where he was beaten as a result of which
he sustained injuries, and 'septicemia'
developed
during
the
course
of
the
treatment. At last, he succumbed to his
injuries. 'Septicemia' has direct nexus
with the injury caused to the deceased.
(Para 20-22)

Bail Application Rejected. (E-10)

List of Cases cited:

1. St. of Telangana Vs Habib Abdullah Jeelani
(2017) 2 SCC 779