Allowed

Guddu @ Sakeel v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC11 Jan 2019BAIL/1626/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Special Judicial Judge Munir allowed a bail application challenging a prosecution for sexual offences (IPC 376, 363, etc.). The Court noted the prosecution relies on shaky ground due to discrepancies in the complainant's medical statement and granted bail subject to standard conditions.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail on executing personal bond and furnishing two sureties, subject to conditions prohibiting tampering and threatening witnesses.

Guddu @ Sakeel Vs State of U.P. — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 64

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 1626 of 2019

¶3

Applicant :- Guddu @ Sakeel Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Vinod Singh 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 Guddu @ Sakeel, in Case Crime No.1649 of 2018 under Sections 363, 366, 376, 354Kha, 376/511, IPC Police Station Kotwali Nagar, District Bulandshahr.

¶6

Heard Sri Vinod Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Akhilesh Kumar Mishra, learned AGA along with Sri Ashutosh Srivastava, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State.

¶7

The submission of learned counsel for the applicant is that though he is nominated in the FIR and the statement under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C., by the prosecutrix, the prosecutrix in her statement recorded before the doctor during her medico legal examination, which is a signed statement, has stated as follows:-

¶8

"लड़की के अनुसार 30/11/18 घर से स्कूल जा रही थी। िजस Auto me मै बैठी उसी Auto मै Guddu बैठ गया। हम 4-5 लड़िकयां होटल मे खाना खाने गए साथ मे गुडू भी गया। तभी हमारे गांव के लड़कों ने देख िलया। हमे और Guddu को bike पर िबठा कर थाने ले गए."

¶9

The submission, therefore, is that it was on account of a primitive reaction of the native boys of the prosecutrix's village on seeing her and other girls of her school sitting along with the applicant in a hotel, when they were returning from school, that irked them to take the applicant to the police station, along with girls, where the brother of the prosecutrix was summoned and he caused the present prosecution to be initiated on patently false facts, coercing the prosecutrix to make false statements to the police. However, before the doctor, since the social and familial influence was not there, the prosecutrix spelt out the truth, which in the submission of the learned counsel for the applicant makes the prosecution case stand on shaky ground.

¶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 exculpatory stand of the prosecutrix in the statement to doctor makes the prosecution stand on shaky ground, 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 Guddu @ Sakeel, in Case Crime No.1649 of 2018 under Sections 363, 366, 376, 354-Kha, 376/511, IPC Police Station Kotwali Nagar, District Bulandshahr 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 :- 11.1.2019 NSC

Guddu @ Sakeel v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Guddu @ Sakeel 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

Mohit Vs State of U.P.

Muniram Vs State of U.P.

Tottarpal Urf Sanjay Vs State of U.P.

Ram Krishna Vs State of U.P.

Qayum Siddiqui Vs State of U.P.

Sumit Gautam @ Johny Vs State of U.P.