Allowed

Parvinder Singh v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC15 Jul 2019BAIL/27991/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a bail application under Sections 376, 452, and 506 IPC, the Single Judge addressed claims of a false prosecution version and lack of family support for the prosecutrix. Finding it a fit case, the court granted bail on personal bond and sureties without commenting on the merits of the offense.

What did the court decide?

Accused released on bail on personal bond and two sureties of like amount.

Parvinder Singh Vs State of U.P. — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 77

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 27991 of 2019

¶3

Applicant :- Parvinder Singh Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Raghuvansh Misra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Sudhakar Yadav

¶4

Hon'ble Umesh Chandra Tripathi,J.

¶5

Shri Sudhakar Yadav, Advocate, has filed his power on behalf of the informant in the Court today, the same is taken on record.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

¶7

By way of instant bail application, prayer has been made to enlarge the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 149 of 2018, under Sections 376, 452, 506 of I.P.C., Police Station - Khutar, District - Shahjahanpur.

¶8

As per version of F.I.R., on 20.03.2018 at about 06.30 P.M., the applicant entered into the residence of the prosecutrix, who is a married lady having three children and committed rape on her. The applicant promised to take care of her children. Accordingly, she could not lodge F.I.R. The F.I.R. was lodged on 02.04.2018.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicant contended that the husband and family members of the prosecutrix have not supported the prosecution version. They stated before the I.O. that false report has been lodged by the prosecutrix. After investigation, the police submitted final report against the applicant. On the basis of protest petition, the applicant has been summoned. The prosecution version does not appear natural. Statement of the prosecutrix is contradictory to the version of the F.I.R. He further contended that the applicant is not a history-sheeter and is languishing in jail since 07.04.2019.

¶10

Per contra, learned counsel for the informant and learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail and contended that the prosecutrix in her statement under Sections 161 and 164 of Cr.P.C., has supported the prosecution version.

¶11

F.I.R. has been lodged after 14 days of the occurrence.

¶12

Without commenting on the merits of the case, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I find it a fit case for

¶13

enlarging the applicant on bail.

¶14

Let the applicant - Parvinder Singh be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned.

¶15

Application stands allowed .

¶16

Order Date :- 15.7.2019 I. Batabyal

Parvinder Singh v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Parvinder 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

Irshad Ali Vs State of U.P.

Sintu Vs State of U.P.

Shadab Vs State of U.P.

Vipin Dubey Vs State of U.P.

Muzammil Vs State of U.P.

Rashid and Another Vs State of U.P.