Allowed

Changa v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC5 Feb 2018BAIL/4064/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a bail application concerning non-bailable offences under Sections 377, 34, 506 IPC and Section 67 IT Act, the court allowed bail. The court noted the applicant's lack of criminal history, the hostility of prosecution witnesses, and the similarity of the applicant's role to a previous co-accused granted bail.

What did the court decide?

Released on bail by furnishing a personal bond and two sureties.

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

¶1

Court No. - 22

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 4064 of 2018

¶3

Applicant :- Changa Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Mohd. Naseer Ahmad,Nazrul Islam Jafri Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Aniruddha Singh,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned AGA for the State, and perused the record.

¶6

According to prosecution case, FIR was lodged against Chagga, Nooru and two other unknown persons alleging that on 23.9.2017 at 7:30 P.M. they committed carnal intercourse against the order of nature with brother of complainant Raheesuddin, made video and uploaded on internet; earlier also they repeated said offence with his brother.

¶7

It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case; he has no criminal history; there was no independent witness; victim and complainant have been examined before the Court as PW-1 and PW-2 and they stated nothing against this accused and turned hostile; the applicant is languishing in jail since 28.9.2017(four months) and in case he is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate in the trial. Co-accused namely Nooru has been granted bail by this Court on 29.1.2018 vide Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 782 of 2018; since the role of the applicant is not distinguishable with the role of co-accused, therefore, the applicant is also entitled for bail.

¶8

On the other hand, learned A.G.A. though opposed the prayer for bail but admitted that the applicant has no criminal history.

¶9

Considering the submission of learned counsel for the parties, facts of the case, nature of allegation and period of custody, gravity of offence, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed.

¶10

Let applicant Changa involved in Case Crime No.440 of 2017, under Sections 377 IPC read Section 34 & 506 IPC and Section 67 of the Information and Technology Act,Police Station Jani, District Meerut be released on bail

¶11

on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions:

¶12

The applicant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.

¶13

The applicant will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness.

¶14

The applicant will appear before the trial court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted.

¶15

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

¶16

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 him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶17

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the court below shall be at liberty to cancel the bail.

¶18

Order Date :- 5.2.2018

¶19

A. Singh

Changa v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Changa 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

Om Prakash Sharma and Others Vs State of U.P.

Santosh Kumar Pandey and Others Vs State of U.P. and Others

Raju Patel Vs State of U.P.

Amar Singh Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Suraj Sonkar Vs State of U.P.

Ramim @ Sheru Vs State of U.P.