Allowed

Yunus v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC9 Aug 2018CRLA/3102/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed an appeal against bail rejection, setting aside the impugned order. Finding a case for bail made out due to the appellant's age, lack of criminal history, and low likelihood of trial conclusion, the Court granted bail with standard conditions.

What did the court decide?

The judgment and order dated 25.05.2018 rejecting bail were set aside. The appellant is released on bail by furnishing a personal bond and two sureties subject to specified conditions.

Yunus Vs State of U.P. and Another — Dowry and Cruelty | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 52

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 3102 of 2018

¶3

Appellant :- Yunus Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Appellant :- Rajiv Sisodia, Dhirendra Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Rajul Bhargava,J.

¶5

In compliance of an order dated 08.06.2018 of this Court, C.J.M., Bijnor has submitted a report that notice has been served personally on opposite party No.02, yet no one has appeared on his behalf to oppose the bail prayer in the instant appeal.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the appellant and the learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶7

This appeal has been filed against judgment and order dated 25.05.2018 passed by learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Court No.5, (POCSO Act), Bijnor passed in Bail Application No. 938 of 2018 (State of U.P. Vs. Yunus), arising out of Case Crime No. 459 of 2017, under Sections 363, 366, 376, 506 I.P.C., 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act and Section 3(2)5 of SC/ST Act, P.S.Nahtaur, District- Bijnor, by which bail plea of appellant has been rejected.

¶8

Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that order of the learned court below rejecting bail application of applicant-appellant is bad in law. It is next contended that the appellant has been falsely implicated by the first informant. As per the first information report, the prosecutrix is aged about 18 years and she had eloped with the appellant on her free will voluntarily as stated by her in her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. She further stated that she wanted to marry appellant but was opposed by her family members, later on, after converting her religion she solemnized Nikah with the appellant and she also went to Allahabad High Court for protection and her age, in fact, is 23 years. She has also expressed her desire to go with her husband Yunus. Learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that learned court below has also failed to consider that appellant has no criminal history and there is also no possibility of his either fleeing away from the judicial process or tampering with the witnesses.

¶9

Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the aforesaid submissions of learned counsel for the appellant.

¶10

Having heard the submission of learned counsel of both sides, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, age of the appellant 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 is allowed. The judgment and order dated

¶12

25.05.2018 passed by learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Court No.5, (POCSO Act), Bijnor is set aside.

¶13

Let appellant-applicant- Yunus, 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:-

¶14

(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.

¶15

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

¶16

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

¶17

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.

¶18

Order Date :- 9.8.2018 Vikas/-

Yunus v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Yunus 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Roshan Vs State of U.P.

Parvez Vs State of U.P.

Ram Govind Singh Vs State of U.P.

Guddu Vs State of U.P.

Ravindra Vs State of U.P.

Vinay Kumar Vs State of U.P.