Allowed

Ragib v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC7 Nov 2019BAIL/46160/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a bail application under section 319 Cr.P.C., the High Court granted bail to the applicant, Ragib, accused of rape and abduction under IPC sections 366 and 376. The court relied on non-inclusion in the FIR, lack of charge-sheet, and parity with a released co-accused.

What did the court decide?

Releasement on bail on furnishing a personal bond with two sureties each and complying with conditions regarding evidence tampering and court appearances.

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

¶1

Court No. - 41

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 46160 of 2019

¶3

Applicant :- Ragib Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Sushil Kumar Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Bachchoo Lal,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶6

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is not named in the FIR. The victim in her statement under section 161 Cr.P.C. has also not disclosed the name of applicant. In her statement under section 164 Cr.P.C. she expressed suspicion for committing rape upon her by the applicant and other co-accused persons. No charge-sheet was submitted against the applicant. The applicant has been summoned to face trail on the basis of an application moved under section 319 Cr.P.C. It has further been submitted that the applicant has not committed the alleged offence. The applicant has been summoned on the basis of statement of victim (P.W. 1). The statement of victim (P.W. 1) is not believable. The coaccused Nasir having identical role has already been released on bail by another bench of this court vide order dated 11.9.2019 in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 34526 of 2019, therefore, the applicant is also entitled for bail on the ground of parity. The applicant has no criminal history and is in jail since 17.9.2019.

¶7

Per contra; learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the aforesaid fact that co-accused Nasir having identical role has already been released on bail.

¶8

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I find it a fit case for bail.

¶9

Let the applicant Ragib involved in Case Crime No. 214 of 2017, under section 366, 376 IPC, P.S. Titavi, District Muzaffar Nagar be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:

¶10

The applicant will not tamper with the evidence.

¶11

He shall not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witnesses and shall cooperate with the trial.

¶12

He shall appear on each and every date fixed by the trial court unless personal appearance is exempted by the court concerned.

¶13

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

¶14

Order Date :- 7.11.2019 Masarrat

Ragib v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ragib 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ajay Sahani Vs State of U.P. and Another

Sanjay Shrivas Vs State of U.P.

Gopal Dharikar Vs State of U.P.

Mool Chandra and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Faizan Vs State of U.P.

Manoj Sonkar and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another