Surajbhan v. State of U.P.

Court No. - 54

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 14275 of 2018

Applicant :- Surajbhan Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Avinash Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

Hon'ble Rahul Chaturvedi,J.

Heard Sri Avinash Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA and perused the record.

Contention raised at the Bar is that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. It has been further submitted that the applicant is not named in the FIR. She has also not even named the applicant, in her statement recorded on 22.01.2018 and 25.01.2018 under sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C., respectively. In her other statement recorded on 29.01.2018, the prosecutrix has taken the name of the applicant with the allegation that he was instrumental in assisting the prime co-accused Jagpal. It has lastly been urged that the applicant is in jail since 29.01.2018, having no criminal antecedents to his credit.

Learned AGA opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the aforesaid facts and the legal submissions as argued by the learned counsel for the applicant.

Keeping in view the nature of the offence,

evidence, complicity of the accused, submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, I am of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail.