Allowed

Irtza v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC2 Aug 2018BAIL/27183/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge allowed bail to applicant Irtza in a case alleging attempted rape and criminal intimidation. The court relied on the victim’s Section 164 Cr.P.C. statement alleging only attempted acts, finding Section 376 IPC prima facie not made out while accepting Section 354 IPC possibility.

What did the court decide?

Released on bail by personal bond and two reliable sureties subject to conditions not tampering with evidence, not pressuring witnesses and appearing before trial court.

Irtza Vs State of U.P. — Cheque Dishonour | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 52

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 27183 of 2018

¶3

Applicant :- Irtza Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Pankaj Bharti Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Rajul Bhargava,J.

¶5

Learned counsel for the applicant has filed supplementary affidavit annexing therewith the certified copy of the statement of the prosecutrix recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., which is taken on record. Heard Sri Pankaj Bharti, learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶6

The present bail application has been filed by the applicant in Case Crime No.83 of 2018, under Sections 376, 506 IPC, Police Station Garhi,Pukhta District Shamli, with the prayer to release him on bail.

¶7

It is argued by learned counsel for the applicant that as per the statement of the victim under Section 164 Cr.P.C., there is no allegation of rape against the applicant. She has only stated that the applicant had attempted to rape her by opening her 'Nara' of lower garment and then she ran away and narrated the story to her mother. It is argued that in view of the categorical statement of the prosecutrix that the applicant has not committed any rape, prima-facie, no offence under Section 376 IPC is made out. At best it may be a case under Section 354 IPC. Lastly, it is submitted that the applicant is in custody since 26.3.2018 having no criminal antecedents.

¶8

Learned A.G.A. vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of bail to the applicant but could not point out anything material to the contrary.

¶9

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case as also the submissions made, without commenting upon merits of the case, I am of the opinion that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail.

¶10

Let applicant Irtza, be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on his furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions that :-

¶11

(1) The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence; (2) The applicant shall not pressurize the prosecution witnesses; (3) The applicant shall appear on the date fixed by the trial Court.

¶12

In case of default of any of the conditions enumerated above, the Courts below shall be at liberty to cancel bail of the applicant.

¶13

Order Date :- 2.8.2018/Hasnain

Irtza v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Irtza 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shahrukh Vs State of U.P.

Rahul Vs State of U.P.

Abhishek Kumar Singh @ Sanjeev Singh Vs State of U.P.

Appu Rajbhar Vs State of U.P.

Sushil Yadav Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Dinesh Kumar Sharma Vs State of U.P.