Allowed

Iqubal v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC20 Apr 2018BAIL/14600/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Hon'ble Rahul Chaturvedi, J. granted bail to the applicant, Iqubal, who was falsely implicated in a rape case involving dowry demands. The court expressed a clear-cut view of arm-twisting and false allegations, allowing bail with strict conditions to ensure trial participation.

What did the court decide?

Order granting bail to applicant Iqubal on furnishing personal bond and two sureties with strict conditions regarding court presence and trial conduct.

Iqubal Vs State of U.P. — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 54

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 14600 of 2018

¶3

Applicant :- Iqubal Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Pradeep Saxena Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Rahul Chaturvedi,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Pradeep Saxena, learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA and perused the record.

¶6

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 the brother-in-law (Jeth) of the prosecutrix, who herself had initially lodged under sections 498-A, 323, 352, 504, 506 IPC and 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act on 05.01.2017 against nine persons, practically speaking against all the family members of the husband were made involved in this case. In her statement recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C., the prosecutrix has swelled the allegations and made allegation of rape against the present applicant and her two brothers-in-law (Devar). It is further submitted that initially proceedings under section 125 Cr.P.C., were initiated for seeking maintenance from her husband on 11.01.2017, which is pending before the court concerned. It is lastly urged that the applicant is in jail since

¶7

21.02.2018, having no criminal antecedents to his credit.

¶8

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.

¶9

Considering the arguments of the contesting parties, there appears that it is a clear cut case of arm twisting and to settle score with her in-laws by levelling a false case of commission of rape.

¶10

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.

¶11

Let the applicant Iqubal, involved in Case Crime No. 24 of 2017, under sections 498-A, 376, 506 IPC and 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, P.S. Izzatngar, District Bareilly be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions which are being imposed in the interest of justice:-

¶12

(i) THE APPLICANT SHALL FILE AN UNDERTAKING TO THE EFFECT THAT HE SHALL NOT SEEK ANY ADJOURNMENT ON THE DATE FIXED FOR EVIDENCE WHEN THE WITNESSES ARE PRESENT IN COURT. IN CASE OF DEFAULT OF THIS CONDITION, IT SHALL BE OPEN FOR THE TRIAL COURT TO TREAT IT AS ABUSE OF LIBERTY OF BAIL AND PASS ORDERS IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW.

¶13

(ii) THE APPLICANT SHALL REMAIN PRESENT BEFORE THE TRIAL COURT ON EACH DATE FIXED, EITHER PERSONALLY OR THROUGH HIS COUNSEL. IN CASE OF HIS ABSENCE, WITHOUT SUFFICIENT CAUSE, THE TRIAL COURT MAY PROCEED AGAINST HIM UNDER SECTION 229-A IPC.

¶14

(iii) IN CASE, THE APPLICANT MISUSES THE LIBERTY OF BAIL DURING TRIAL AND IN ORDER TO SECURE HIS PRESENCE PROCLAMATION UNDER SECTION 82 CR.P.C., MAY BE ISSUED AND IF APPLICANT FAILS TO APPEAR BEFORE THE COURT ON THE DATE FIXED IN SUCH PROCLAMATION, THEN, THE TRIAL COURT SHALL INITIATE PROCEEDINGS AGAINST HIM, IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW, UNDER SECTION 174-A IPC.

¶15

(iv) THE APPLICANT SHALL REMAIN PRESENT, IN PERSON, BEFORE THE TRIAL COURT ON DATES FIXED FOR (1) OPENING OF THE CASE, (2) FRAMING OF CHARGE AND (3) RECORDING OF STATEMENT UNDER SECTION 313 CR.P.C. IF IN THE OPINION OF THE TRIAL COURT ABSENCE OF THE APPLICANT IS DELIBERATE OR WITHOUT SUFFICIENT CAUSE, THEN IT SHALL BE OPEN FOR THE TRIAL COURT TO TREAT SUCH DEFAULT AS ABUSE OF LIBERTY OF BAIL AND PROCEED AGAINST HIM IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW.

¶16

(v) THE TRIAL COURT MAY MAKE ALL POSSIBLE EFFORTS/ENDEAVOUR AND TRY TO CONCLUDE THE TRIAL WITHIN A PERIOD OF ONE YEAR AFTER THE RELEASE OF THE APPLICANT.

¶17

However, it is made clear that any wilful violation of above conditions by the applicant, shall have serious repercussion on his bail so granted by this court. Order Date :- 20.4.2018

¶18

shailesh

Iqubal v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Iqubal v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Babu Singh Vs State of U.P.

Vijay Vs State of U.P.

Babu @ Rahul Kushwaha Vs State of U.P.

Ajju @ Ajay Vs State of U.P.

Santosh Kumar Dubey Vs State of U.P.

Moin Vs State of U.P.