Allowed

Samajhdar v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC29 Jan 2019BAIL/4004/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Hon'ble Aniruddha Singh, J. allowed bail to Samajhdar in a rape and assault case lodged via an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. The court noted the lack of medical injury, the existence of a marriage between the parties, and the uncorroborated nature of the prosecution version.

What did the court decide?

Release on bail subject to personal bond, two sureties, and conditions against tampering with evidence, intimidating witnesses, and absconding.

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

¶1

Court No. - 50

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 4004 of 2019

¶3

Applicant :- Samajhdar Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Yogesh Kumar Srivastava,Noor Muhammad Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Aniruddha Singh,J.

¶5

This case has been assigned by the Hon'ble The Chief Justice vide order dated 29.1.2019.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned AGA for the State and perused the record.

¶7

According to prosecution case, FIR was lodged on 19.7.2018(After about two months from the date of incident) on the basis of application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. against Samajhdar and Mithun @ Sunil alleging that on 24.5.2018 they assaulted and raped the prosecutrix/complainant.

¶8

It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is in jail 17.11.2018(more than two months) having no criminal history. There was love affair between applicant and the prosecutrix. She was major and both have married each other and their marriage was also registered. Mithun @ Sunil has already been granted bail by coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 4.1.2019 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.48086 of 2018 (Bail order produced during argument, is taken on record). He has been falsely implicated. The prosecution version is not corroborated by the medical report as there is no external or internal injury found upon her person. After marriage, due to some dispute between wife and husband, FIR has been lodged with due legal consultation and thought by way of filing an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. There is no independent witness. In case applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate in the trial.

¶9

On the other hand, learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the aforesaid fact as argued by learned counsel for the applicant. He admitted that the applicant has no criminal history.

¶10

Considering the submission of learned counsel for the parties, facts of the case, nature of allegation, period of custody, gravity of offence and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court is of the view that the applicant has made

¶11

out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed.

¶12

Let applicant Samajhdar involved in Case Crime No.132 of 2018, under Section 323, 504, 506,376-D IPC, Police Station Gaura Badshahpur, District Jaunpur be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions:

¶13

The applicant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.

¶14

The applicant will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness.

¶15

The applicant will appear before the trial court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted.

¶16

The applicant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which he is accused, or suspected, of the commission of which he is suspected.

¶17

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 him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶18

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the court below shall be at liberty to cancel the bail.

¶19

Order Date :- 29.1.2019 P.P.

Samajhdar v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Samajhdar 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

Gangaram Gangwar Vs State of U.P.

Ali Hasan Vs State of U.P.

Saddam Vs State of U.P.

Taaj Mohammad Vs State of U.P.

Sonu Vs State of U.P.

Amit @ Rahul Vs State of U.P.