Allowed¶11

Jai Prakash v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC10 Sept 2020BAIL/22204/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Allahabad High Court (Ajit Singh, J.), Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 22204 of 2020, decided 10.9.2020. Bail under Sections 366/368/376/506 IPC, Case Crime No. 151 of 2017, P.S. Chowk, Maharajganj; FIR via section 156(3) Cr.P.C. alleging abduction and rape of a major prosecutrix on 10.4.2017; defence plea of false FIR over money dispute and absence of alarm despite adult witnesses; applicant in custody since 20.8.2017, no antecedents; bail allowed on personal bond and two sureties with conditions.

What did the court decide?

Bail granted during pendency of trial on execution of a personal bond with two sureties each in the like amount, subject to conditions of attendance and non-tampering/non-inducement. ¶11

Jai Prakash Vs State of U.P. — Allahabad HC (2020) — LawSathi Research

¶1

Court No. - 75

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 22204 of 2020

¶3

Applicant :- Jai Prakash Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Pramod Kumar Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Ajit Singh,J.

¶5

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

¶6

By means of this application, the applicant who is involved in Case Crime No. 151 of 2017, under Sections 366, 368, 376 and 506 I.P.C., P.S. Chowk, district-Maharajganj, is seeking enlargement on bail during the trial.

¶7

The first information report of the incident was lodged on 12.6.2017 against the present accused by the prosecutrix, pursuant to the order passed by the Magistrate on the application moved by her before him under section 156(3) Cr.P.C. It was alleged in the FIR that the accused was teasing the victim with the intention to make physical relationship with her and in this regard she has given several complaints to the police but no action was taken against the present accused by the police. It was also alleged in the FIR that on 10.4.2017 at about 3:00 p.m. the accused had forcibly taken away the victim to the forest from her house in the absence of her husband and committed rape with her.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant was running a general merchant shop in the village and some money was due towards the complainant and when the applicant demanded for the said amount, a false FIR has been lodged against him. He further submits that the victim is admittedly major and she has deposed before the trial court that when she was forcibly taken away by the applicant at that time two adult persons were present in her house but neither the victim nor the said persons raised an alarm for help and the incident is alleged to have taken place in broad day light. He lastly submitted that the applicant, who is in jail since 20.8.2017 and has no criminal antecedents to his credit is entitled to be enlarged on bail during pendency of the trial.

¶9

The prayer for bail has been vehemently opposed by learned A.G.A.

¶10

Keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, severity of the punishment, submissions of learned counsel for the parties and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this Court is of the view that the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail during the pendency of the trial.

¶11

Let the applicant, Jai Prakash be released on bail in the aforesaid case on his executing a personal bond and furnishing two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to the following conditions:-

¶12

(a) The applicant shall attend the court according to the conditions of the bond executed by him.

¶13

(b) The applicants 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.

¶14

The party shall file computer generated copy of such order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad, self attested by learned counsel for the applicant along with a self attested identity proof of the said persons (preferably Aadhar Card) mentioning the mobile number (s) to which the said Aadhar Card is linked before the concerned Court/Authority/Official.

¶15

The concerned Court/Authority/Official shall verify the authenticity of such computerized copy of the order from the official website of High Court Allahabad and shall make a declaration of such verification in

¶16

writing.

¶17

Order Date :- 10.9.2020 Faridul

Jai Prakash v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jai Prakash v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sachin Rajbhar Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ajay Pal Alias Lalu Vs State of U.P.

Chandrajeet Vs State of U.P.

Harjeet @ Arjeet Vs State of U.P. and Another

Mohd. Mansoor Alam @ Mannu Vs State of U.P.

Dashrath Vs State of U.P.