Allowed

Maharaj Singh v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC27 Nov 2018BAIL/44971/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Held that bail is a fit case pending trial due to alleged false prosecution motivated by a family dispute involving separate litigation against the prosecutrix's husband. The court allowed bail with standard conditions.

What did the court decide?

Released on bail by executing personal bond and two sureties with conditions to not tamper with evidence, threaten witnesses, appear in court, or commit similar offences.

Maharaj Singh Vs State of U.P. — Quashing and FIR | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 53

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 44971 of 2018

¶3

Applicant :- Maharaj Singh Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Ashutosh Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble J.J. Munir,J.

¶5

This is an application for bail on behalf of the applicant Maharaj Singh, in Case Crime No.283 of 2018, under Sections 376, 506 IPC, Police Station Saiya, District Agra.

¶6

Heard Sri Ashutosh Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri K.K. Dwivedi, learned counsel has put in appearance on behalf of the complainant and Sri Akhilesh Kumar Mishra, learned AGA appearing on behalf of the State.

¶7

The submission of the learned counsel for the applicant is that the present prosecution is one that is evidently motivated and false. It is submitted that the niece of the applicant, Maharaj Singh was outraged modesty of by the prosecutrix's husband, and, in that connection, Case Crime No.243 of 2018 under Section 354 IPC and Section 7/8 POCSO Act was registered on a report lodged by the brother of the applicant. In connection with the said case, the husband of the prosecutrix was sent to jail. He was released on bail on 25.7.2018, whereafter in order to spite the applicant, the present FIR has been lodged. The further motivation is to strike a bargain into coercing the applicant's brother into withdrawing from the prosecution of the case brought against the prosecutrix's husband, Sunder, a copy of the FIR wherein is annexed as Annexure-6 to the affidavit. Learned counsel has urged that the statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C., and other statements are also indicative of the ongoing enmity between parties on the above account and

¶8

have been made on a premeditated basis carrying patently false facts on account of which, in the background of the pending criminal litigation between parties, it is not safe and dependable to detain the applicant pending trial.

¶9

Sri Dwivedi and the learned AGA have opposed the prayer for bail.

¶10

Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, the gravity of the offence, the nature of allegation, the evidence appearing in the case, the severity of punishment, and, in particular, the backgrounds of a definite dispute between parties leading to criminal litigation where the prosecutrix's husband has recently been sent to jail in connection with the rape of the applicant's niece and has been thereafter enlarged on bail, but without expressing any opinion on merits, this Court finds it to be a fit case for bail.

¶11

The bail application, accordingly, stands allowed .

¶12

Let the applicant Maharaj Singh , in Case Crime No.283 of 2018, under Sections 376, 506 IPC, Police Station Saiya, District Agra 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:

¶13

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

¶14

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

¶15

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

¶16

iv) The applicant shall not commit an offence similar to the

¶17

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 :- 27.11.2018 NSC

Maharaj Singh v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Maharaj Singh 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

Nitin Kasana Vs State of U.P.

Nand Lal Gupta Vs State of U.P.

Rahul Saxena Vs State of U.P.

Barnali Baishya Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Nurain Vs State of U.P.

Rahul Nayak@Rahi Jain@Samyak Raj Nayak Vs State of U.P.