Allowed

Ayub Ali v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC24 Aug 2018CRLA/2254/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the appeal and set aside the rejection of bail. Considering the nature of the accusation, the evidence presented, and the unlikelihood of early trial conclusion, bail was granted to the appellant subject to conditions.

What did the court decide?

Appeal allowed; impugned order setting aside; appellant released on bail with personal bond and two sureties subject to specific conditions of conduct during trial.

Ayub Ali Vs State of U.P. and Another — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 52

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 2254 of 2018

¶3

Appellant :- Ayub Ali Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Appellant :- Lallan Prasad Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Rajul Bhargava,J.

¶5

Notice as directed by this Court has been served on opposite party no.2 but no one has appeared on her behalf.

¶6

Heard Shri Lallan Prasad, learned counsel for the appellant, learned AGA for the State and perused the record.

¶7

This appeal has been filed against the judgement and order dated 28.3.2018 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Kanpur-Dehat, in SST No.47 of 2018 (State vs. Ayub Ali), arising out of Case Crime No.39 of 2018, under Sections 376, 506 I.P.C. & 3(2)(V) of SC/ST Act, P.S. Shivali, District Rambai Nagar, by which bail plea of appellant has been rejected.

¶8

Submission of learned counsel for the appellant is that the first information report was lodged on 4.2.2018 at 7.46 P.M. regarding the alleged incident of rape allegedly committed by the applicant-appellant on 2.2.2018 at 9 P.M. It is stated that when the victim had gone to attend call of nature, appellant reached there and forcibly made her fall in the ground and raped her. In the statement under section 161 Cr.P.C., she has developed that the appellant was armed with Katta. As per statement of the Doctor who had examined the victim, has stated that the victim had refused for her medical examination regarding commission of rape. In the light of the statement of the Doctor, it is argued that there is nothing on the record to corroborate the version of forcibly raped by the appellant. Lastly, it is submitted that the appellant is languishing in jail since 5.2.2018 having no criminal antecedents.

¶9

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

¶10

Having heard the submission of learned counsel for the applicantappellant, considering the facts and circumstances of the case and nature of accusation against appellant and evidence in support of it and unlikelihood of conclusion of trial in near future, I find that a case for bail has been made out.

¶11

In the result, appeal stands allowed. The order dated 28.3.2018 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Kanpur-Dehat, in SST No.47 of 2018 (State vs. Ayub Ali), arising out of Case Crime No.39 of 2018, under Sections 376, 506 I.P.C. & 3(2)(V) of SC/ST Act, P.S. Shivali, District Rambai Nagar, is set aside.

¶12

Let appellant-applicant - Ayub Ali, be released on bail in aforesaid case on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of magistrate/court concerned, subject to following conditions:-

¶13

(i) The applicant-appellant will co-operate with the trial and remain present personally on each and every date fixed for framing of charge, recording of evidence as well as recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. or through counsel on other dates and in case of absence without sufficient cause, it will be deemed that he is abusing the liberty of bail enabling the court concerned to take necessary action in accordance with the provisions of Section 82 Cr.P.C. or Sections 174A and 229A I.P.C.

¶14

(ii) The applicant-appellant will not tamper with the prosecution evidence and will not delay the disposal of trial in any manner whatsoever.

¶15

(iii) The applicant-appellant will not indulge in any unlawful activities.

¶16

The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be verified by court concerned and in case of breach of any of the conditions mentioned above, court concerned will be at liberty to cancel the bail and send the applicant to prison.

¶17

Order Date :- 24.8.2018

¶18

Hasnain

Ayub Ali v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ayub Ali v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Gajju Vs State of U.P.

Sateesh Vs State of U.P.

Arjun Vs State of U.P.

Irshad Vs State of U.P.

Kunwar Singh @ Sonu Vs State of U.P.

Bhole Shankar @ Sonu Vs State of U.P.