Allowed

Santram @ Baihana Chamar v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC17 Jan 2019BAIL/2273/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A single-bench criminal bail application allowed. The court granted bail relying on the principle of parity with a co-accused already admitted to bail, noting the applicant was not nominated in the informed FIR and has no specific rape allegations against him, despite the serious nature of the charges involved.

What did the court decide?

Release on bail on executing personal bond and furnishing two sureties with conditions to not tamper with evidence, threaten witnesses, or commit similar offences.

Santram @ Baihana Chamar Vs State of U.P. — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 64

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 2273 of 2019

¶3

Applicant :- Santram @ Baihana Chamar Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Dhirendra Singh Rajput 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 Santram @ Baihana Chamar, in Case Crime No.175 of 2018, under Sections 366, 376(2)D, 376 Gha, 370(2), 506, 114, IPC, Police Station, Kabrai, District Mahoba.

¶6

Heard Sri Faheem Ahmad, holding brief of Sri Dhirendra Singh Rajpur, learned counsel for the applicant 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 in the FIR lodged by the prosecutrix's father after her recovery and communication of all information, nominates co-accused Dinesh alone on an allegation of taking the prosecutrix away by blandishment. There is no allegation of rape in the said FIR against any one. It is submitted that in the statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C., the allegation of rape has been levelled against co-accused Dinesh and Balveer. There is absolutely no allegation of rape against the applicant. The role assigned to the applicant there is of taking the prosecutrix on board bus from one station to another. Likewise, in the statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C., there is no allegation of rape against the applicant, that is confined to co-accused Dinesh and Balveer. Learned counsel has further pointed out that another co-accused Rakesh in the same crime, who is nominated under Section 161 and 164 Cr.P.C., but not with an allegation of rape, has been admitted to

¶8

the concession of bail by this Court vide order dated 5.10.2018 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.37161 of 2018. Learned counsel submits that the applicant is entitled to bail on ground of parity.

¶9

Learned AGA has opposed the prayer for bail but does not dispute the factum of parity.

¶10

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 applicant is not at all nominated in an informed FIR lodged by the prosecutrix, the fact that the applicant does not figure in connection with an allegation of rape in the statement under Section 161 or 164 Cr.P.C., or elsewhere, which is confined to co-accused Dinesh and Balveer alone, the fact that co-accused Rakesh, whose case is said to be at par with the applicant has been admitted to 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 Santram @ Baihana Chamar , in Case Crime No.175 of 2018, under Sections 366, 376(2)D, 376 Gha, 370(2), 506, 114, IPC, Police Station, Kabrai, District Mahobabe 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

¶16

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

It is clarified that anything said in this order is limited to the purpose of determination of this bail application and will in no way be construed as an expression on the merits of the case. It is clarified that the trial court shall be absolutely free to arrive at its independent conclusions on the basis of evidence lead unaffected by anything said in this order.

¶21

Order Date :- 17.1.2019 NSC

Santram @ Baihana Chamar v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Santram @ Baihana Chamar 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

Manoj Vs State of U.P.

Shamsher Bahadur Vs State of U.P.

Sunil Kumar Bhartiya Vs State of U.P.

Shiva Chauhan Vs State of U.P.

Manoj Singh Vs State of U.P.

Muqeem Vs State of U.P.