Allowed

Pankaj Rai v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC25 Sept 2019BAIL/39635/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a bail application regarding offenses under sections 376-D, 504, 506, and 342 IPC, the court examined allegations of sexual assault and loan-related fraud. Finding contradictions in the prosecution narrative and lack of medical corroboration for the rape charge, the court granted bail with personal bonds and sureties, imposing strict conditions to prevent tampering with witnesses and ensure tri

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties of like amount, subject to conditions regarding non-tampering and trial cooperation.

Pankaj Rai Vs State of U.P. — Cheating and Forgery | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 88

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 39635 of 2019

¶3

Applicant :- Pankaj Rai Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Prakash Chandra Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Prakash Chandra Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Prashant Kumar, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material on record.

¶6

The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant, Pankaj Rai with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No. 221 of 2019, under Sections 376-D, 504, 506, 342 I.P.C., Police Station- Kotwali, District- Azamgarh , during pendency of trial.

¶7

It is argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that as per the allegations made in the F.I.R. on 23.06.2019, the informant belongs to scheduled caste community and her father has been living in Mumbai for livelihood. It has been alleged that her mother went to Mumbai to take care of her father as he was ill and from where she called the prosecutrix through mobile to send Rs. 10,000/- for treatment of her father after taking the same from any money lender. After coming to know that the coaccused Ajay Kumar Rai lends money, the prosecutrix went to the co-accused Ajay Kumar Rai requesting him to lend money. It has further been alleged that on the next day the prosecutrix was called by the co-accused, when she went there requesting for money from the co-accused Ajay Kumar Rai, the applicant was also present there and she was sexually assaulted by him. She went for a second time requesting for money from the coaccused, where he tried to misbehave and make physical relations with her after abusing and threatening to make video clips viral and to kill her. She was able to escape from the place of occurrence and the present F.I.R has been lodged.

¶8

It has been argued by learned counsel for the applicant that the statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. which is only a repetition of the F.I.R. but there are contradictions regarding taken away of the prosecutrix to Lucknow by the applicant and then by the co-accused. The prosecution story regarding sexually assaulted is false and frivolous. Seeing the huge contradiction in the statement of the victim and in the F.I.R., applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. The medical examination report of the prosecutrix also does not support the prosecution

¶9

story. The date of birth of the prosecutrix is 16.08.1995. As such the prosecutrix is 24 years old and a major girl. The applicant is languishing in jail since 28.06.2019. The applicant has no criminal history except in the present case. In case, he is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate in the trial by all means. Lastly, it is submitted that there is no chance of applicant fleeing away from judicial process or tampering with the witnesses.

¶10

Per contra learned A.G.A. has opposed the bail prayer of the applicant by contending that the innocence of the applicant cannot be adjudged at pre trial stage, therefore, he does not deserve any indulgence. In case the applicant is released on bail he will again indulge in similar activities and will misuse the liberty of bail.

¶11

Considering the material/evidence brought on record, the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties as well as the dictum of Apex Court in the case of Dataram Singh Vs. State of U.P. and another, reported in (2018) 3 SCC 22 , let the applicant involved in the aforesaid case crime be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned, subject to the following conditions that :-

¶12

The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence by intimidating/ pressurizing the witnesses, during the investigation or trial.

¶13

The applicant shall cooperate in the trial sincerely without seeking any adjournment.

¶14

The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal activity or commission of any crime after being released on bail.

¶15

In case, of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.

¶16

Identity, status and residence proof of the applicant and sureties be verified by the court concerned before the bonds are accepted.

¶17

Order Date :- 25.9.2019 Priya

Pankaj Rai v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pankaj Rai 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Tuhina Vs State of U.P.

Deepak @ Bhirda Vs State of U.P.

Sarvesh Kumar Vs State of U.P.

Arun Kumar Yadav Vs State of U.P.

Ankul Kumar Vs State of U.P.

Krishna Kumar Sonkar Vs State of U.P.