In a bail application under Sections 363, 366 and 120B IPC, the High Court rejected the plea. The applicant is the brother-in-law of the main accused, and the victim girl had not been recovered.
Bail application rejected. No bail granted.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 34
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 19780 of 2020
Applicant :- Imanuddin Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Dhirendra Kumar Srivastava,Rajiv Sisodia
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Mrs. Sunita Agarwal,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State.
The present application has been filed by the applicant in Case Crime No.282 of 2019 under Sections 363, 366 & 120B I.P.C, Police Station- Heempur Deepa District-Bijnor with the prayer to enlarge him on bail.
The applicant herein is brother-in-law of the main accused namely Nadeem @ Kallu. It is admitted that victim girl has not been recovered so far.
Learned counsel for the applicant, however, states that all efforts shall be made by the applicant to ensure the production of the victim girl before investigating agency, who had left her house along with the brother-in-law of the accused.
Having perused the material on record, no good ground is made out to enlarge the applicant on bail.
The bail application is, accordingly, rejected.
Order Date :- 24.8.2020 Harshita
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the applicant can be enlarged on bail in a conspiracy case involving abduction and rape where the victim has not been recovered.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Imanuddin
Sunita Agarwal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
