Allowed

Aminuddin v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC17 Dec 2018BAIL/40196/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bail application allowed. Court finds prima facie it is a fit case for bail given the allegations of matrimonial dispute turning criminal, noting oddity of rape allegations and lack of medical injuries, though without expressing final opinion on merits.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail on personal bond and two sureties with conditions to not tamper with evidence, threaten witnesses, or commit further offences.

Aminuddin Vs State of U.P. — Cheating and Forgery | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 53

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 40196 of 2018

¶3

Applicant :- Aminuddin Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Ramji Singh Patel,Ashok Kumar Mishra

¶4

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble J.J. Munir,J.

¶6

This is an application for bail on behalf of the applicant Aminuddin, in Case Crime No.110 of 2018, under Sections 420, 406, 323, 504, 506, 452, 376 IPC, Police Station Lohta, District Varanasi.

¶7

Heard Sri Ashok Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri J.B. Singh, learned AGA along with Sri Avanish Shukla, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State.

¶8

The submission of the learned counsel for the applicant is that the present prosecution is patently mala fide and motivated in the background of a marriage proposal, almost finalized, that fell through. Learned counsel for the applicant has taken the Court through the FIR and the statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C., where no doubt, there are allegations talking about a settled marriage between parties, and dispute over dowry, wherein an allegation of rape has been introduced, with the prosecutrix saying in her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C., that he would not marry her unless she had sexual relations with him ahead of marriage. It is submitted that the allegation is to its face say as odd that it is ex facie unbelievable. It is further submitted that the age of the prosecutrix, upon a medical determination of it, has been opined by the Chief Medical Officer, Varanasi vide his certificate dated 4.6.2018 based on an

¶9

ossification test to be 19 to 20 years. The prosecutrix is no doubt a major. It is further submitted that the medico legal examination also does not disclose any injury, either external or internal, to support the case of rape.

¶10

Learned AGA has opposed the prayer for bail.

¶11

Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, the gravity of the offence, the nature of allegations, the severity of punishment, and, in particular, the fact that the FIR and the statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C., prima facie shows it to be a case of a matrimonial alliance and an arrange one, which fell through for various reasons, but without expressing any opinion on merits, this Court finds it to be a fit case for bail.

¶12

The bail application, accordingly, stands allowed.

¶13

Let the applicant Aminuddin, in Case Crime No.110 of 2018, under Sections 420, 406, 323, 504, 506, 452, 376 IPC, Police Station Lohta, District Varanasi be released on bail on executing his personal bond and furnishing two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:

¶14

i) The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence.

¶15

ii) The applicant shall not threaten or harass the prosecution witnesses.

¶16

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

¶17

iv) The applicant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which the applicant is accused, or suspected of the commission.

¶18

v) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade such person from disclosing facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶19

In case of default of any of the conditions enumerated above, the complainant would be free to move an application for cancellation of bail before this Court.

¶20

Order Date :- 17.12.2018 NSC

Aminuddin v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Aminuddin 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

Ram Das Yadav Vs State of U.P.

Pradeep Kumar Maurya Vs State of U.P.

Lalaram Vs State of U.P.

Abrar Ali Vs State of U.P.

Farid Vs State of U.P.

Vinod Vs State of U.P.