Allowed

Ishtiyaq Kankali @ Ninhe @ Nanhe v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC19 Dec 2019BAIL/7011/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court disposed of a bail application in a gang rape case. After noting that the prosecutrix had recanted her statement during the trial and that co-accused were on bail, the court granted bail to the applicant on personal bond and sureties.

What did the court decide?

Release of the applicant on bail upon furnishing a personal bond and two sureties in like amount, subject to conditions against tampering with evidence, pressurizing witnesses, and appearing in court.

Ishtiyaq Kankali @ Ninhe @ Nanhe Vs State of U.P. — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 66

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 7011 of 2019

¶3

Applicant :- Ishtiyaq Kankali @ Ninhe @ Nanhe Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Arvind Kumar Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Rajul Bhargava,J.

¶5

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

¶6

The present bail application has been filed by the applicant in Case Crime No. 693 of 2017, u/s 308, 323, 364, 376D, 377 IPC, P.S. Sarpataha, District Jaunpur with the prayer for enlarging him on bail.

¶7

This is the second bail application. The first bail was rejected by this Court on merit vide order dated 27.8.2018. It is alleged by the prosecutrix that five unknown accused had gang raped the prosecutrix and during investigation, applicant and four other arrested in the vehicle and they were put up for identification test. The prosecutrix correctly identified the applicant and other co-accused in jail. Learned counsel has pointed out that now the prosecutrix has been examined as PW-2 in the trial and she has categorically stated that the accused, who are present in the dock, have not raped her and has denied the prosecution version of gang rape. It is stated that co-accused Haroon Kankali and Raj Narayan have been granted bail by the coordinate Bench of this Court in Bail Application nos. 50399 of 2019 and 25552 of 2018 vide orders dated 20.11.2019 and 23.7.2019 respectively and only the applicant is in jail in the present case. He has further submitted that criminal history of three cases has been duly explained in the affidavit.

¶8

Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail. However he could not point out anything material to the contrary.

¶9

In view of the facts and circumstances of the case and submissions made by learned counsel for the applicant and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case the applicant is entitled to be released on bail.

¶10

Let the applicant Ishtiyaq Kankali @ Ninhe @ Nanhe involved in the aforesaid case crime number be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:-

¶11

(i) The applicant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.

¶12

(ii) The applicant will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness.

¶13

(iii)The applicant will appear before the trial court on the date fixed.

¶14

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

¶15

Order Date :- 19.12.2019 Dhirendra/

Ishtiyaq Kankali @ Ninhe @ Nanhe v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ishtiyaq Kankali @ Ninhe @ Nanhe 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

Raseed Khan and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Yashu Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Nanak @ Jai Prakash Vs State of U.P.

Shivam Jat (Minor) Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Ummed Vs State of U.P. and Another

Mithlesh Vs State of U.P. and Another