Allowed

Waseem v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC17 Sept 2018BAIL/31418/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court granted bail to the applicant, Waseem, charged under Section 376 IPC. The release was contingent upon furnishing a personal bond and sureties, and undertaking to solemnize marriage with the prosecutrix without tampering with evidence or witnesses.

What did the court decide?

Released on bail subject to personal bond, two sureties, non-tampering with evidence, and undertaking to solemnize marriage with the victim.

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

¶1

Court No. - 52

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 31418 of 2018

¶3

Applicant :- Waseem Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Deepak Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Sanjay Singh

¶4

Hon'ble Rajul Bhargava,J.

¶5

Learned counsel for the applicant has filed supplementary affidavit, which is taken on record.

¶6

Heard Sri Deepak Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Sanjay Singh, learned counsel for the informant and the learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶7

The present bail application has been filed by the applicant- Waseem in Case Crime No. 200 of 2018, under Section 376 I.P.C., Police StationShahzad Nagar, District- Rampur with the prayer to enlarge him on bail.

¶8

The submission of the learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. The prosecutrix is aged about 18 years. In her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. she has admitted that on the pretext of marrying her the applicant had established physical relations with her and subsequently sexually exploiting her, he refused to solemnize Nikah with her to which learned counsel for the applicant states that in fact the applicant has never refused to solemnize marriage with her. In this behalf learned counsel for the applicant has also filed supplementary affidavit of the father of the applicant and in para 3 sworn on personal knowledge it is averred as under:-

¶9

"3. That being father of the applicant, Deponent under takes that he will solemnized the marriage of his son (applicant) with the victim Rana of the present case after release on bail and in between the period as fixed by the mutual understanding with the father of the victim as well as with other family members."

¶10

Learned counsel for the applicant states that in view of the genuine offer made by the applicant's father the applicant, who is in jail since 23.06.2018, having no criminal history to his credit may be enlarged on bail. There is no early prospect of conclusion of trial.

¶11

Per contra, learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for the informant states that they have no objection if the bail is granted to the applicant, especially, to the condition that the applicant shall solemnize Nikah with the victim as undertaken by the father of the applicant.

¶12

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case as also the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties, without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, I am of the view that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail.

¶13

Let applicant- Waseem be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime

¶14

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:-

¶15

1.The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence;

¶16

2.The applicant shall not pressurize the prosecution witnesses;

¶17

3.The applicant shall appear on the date fixed by the trial court.

¶18

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

¶19

Order Date :- 17.9.2018 Vikas/-

Waseem v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Waseem 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

Azeem Vs State of U.P.

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

Mohd. Faheem Vs State of U.P.

Pradum Singh Vs State of U.P.

Smt. Mithlesh Sharma Vs State of U.P.

Shamshad Vs State of U.P.