The Court allowed a bail application under Sections 366 and 376D IPC. Considering the facts and circumstances, including that the applicant is not a repeat offender, the Court found it a fit case for enlargement on bail despite opposing counsel's objections.
Released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties of the like amount.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 77
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 3435 of 2019
Applicant :- Irshad Ali Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Brijesh Narayan Srivastava,Shahroze Khan,Vijay Prakash Chaturvedi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Umesh Chandra Tripathi,J.
Shri I.S. Yadav, learned A.G.A.-I appearing for the State of U.P., has filed counter affidavit in the Court today, the same is taken on record.
Supplementary affidavit has been filed by Shri V.P. Chaturvedi, learned counsel for the applicant in the Court today, the same is also taken on record.
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
By way of instant bail application, prayer has been made to enlarge the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 120 of 2018, under Sections 366, 376D, 406 of I.P.C., Police Station - Itwa, District - Siddharth Nagar.
As per prosecution version, on 18.08.2019 at about 02.00 P.M., the applicant enticed and took away the prosecutrix, aged about 19 years. First information report in this reference was lodged after ten days of the occurrence i.e. on 28.08.2018, under Section 366 I.P.C.
Learned counsel for the applicant contended that the prosecutrix is major. She had gone with the applicant on the own sweet will. She travelled with the applicant to several places by public vehicle, but did not raise any alarm while travelling with the applicant. Later on, due to coercion of her parents, she made false allegation against the applicant in her statement under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. The prosecutrix in her statement under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. stated that in the night of 18.08.2019 at 9 O' clock, the applicant came at her residence with his two friends and abducted her in Bolero vehicle. If the prosecutrix was abducted by the applicant in the night of 18.08.2018 at 9 O' clock, then this fact must have been narrated in the F.I.R. During trial, in her statement before the trial court, the prosecutrix stated that she had gone to her relative's home and returned to her home after about 12 days of the occurrence. The
applicant had not abducted her. Accordingly, no offence is made out against the applicant. He further contended that the applicant is not a history-sheeter and is languishing in jail since 07.09.2018.
Per contra, learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail.
Without commenting on the merits of the case, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I find it a fit case for enlarging the applicant on bail.
Let the applicant - Irshad Ali 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.
Application stands allowed .
Order Date :- 11.7.2019 I. Batabyal
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the applicant is entitled to bail in a case involving under sections 366 and 376D of the IPC?
Irshad Ali
Umesh Chandra Tripathi
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
