Allowed

Amit @ Rahul v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC29 Jan 2019BAIL/4078/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bail application allowed for accused charged with kidnapping and rape. Court noted delayed FIR and marital dispute allegations as grounds for release under personal bond and sureties.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail by furnishing a personal bond and two sureties in like amount, subject to conditions regarding tampering with evidence and appearance before the trial court.

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

¶1

Court No. - 50

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 4078 of 2019

¶3

Applicant :- Amit @ Rahul Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Madan Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Aniruddha Singh,J.

¶5

This case has been assigned by The Ho'ble The Chief Justice vide order dated 29.01.2019.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Sri P.K. Srivastava, learned A.G.A for the State and perused the record.

¶7

According to prosecution case, F.I.R. was lodged against four accused persons, namely, Amit @ Rahul, Ramesh, Smt. Batiya and Vishal alleging that on 9.6.2018 the daughter of the complainant Km. Shalu, who was 17 years of age, was kidnapped for marry and raped her.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that F.I.R. was lodged on 20.7.2018 after one month and eleven days of the incident alleging that on 9.6.2018 they kidnapped the daughter of the complainant and Amit raped her. F.I.R. was lodged falsely after thought and with due legal consultation. During investigation, the statements of Guddu and Mahipal were recorded and they are maternal uncles of the prosecutrix in which they have stated that the prosecutrix had married with the applicant before 4-5 months and they were present at the time of marriage and helped them. Due to some dispute was arisen between the wife and husband hence the impugned F.I.R. was lodged. The photographs of the applicant and prosecutrix at the time of marriage have also been annexed at page 43 of the bail application and on that photographs the prosecutrix has put 'Sindur' on her 'Mang' hence it is very clear that no rape was committed by the applicant. According to medical report, she is major and 20 years of age. The age of the prosecutrix was shown as 17 years is false. No offence is made out against the applicant; applicant is languishing in jail since 29.8.2018 (more than five months) having no criminal history; the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case; there is no independent witness and in case he is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate in trial.

¶9

Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the aforesaid fact as argued by learned counsel for the

¶10

applicant and admitted that applicant has no criminal history.

¶11

Considering the submission of learned counsel for the parties, facts of the case, nature of allegation and period of custody, gravity of offence, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court is of the opinion that it is a fit case for bail. Hence, the bail application is hereby allowed.

¶12

Let the applicant Amit @ Rahul involved in Case Crime No. 182 of 2018, under Section 363, 366, 376, 328, 506 IPC, Police Station-Chhajlet, District-Moradabad 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

2.The applicant will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness.

¶15

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

¶16

4.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

5.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 OP

Amit @ Rahul v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Amit @ Rahul 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.

Samajhdar Vs State of U.P.

Taaj Mohammad Vs State of U.P.

Sonu Vs State of U.P.