Ikram Vs State of U.P.

Court No. - 67

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 2762 of 2020

Applicant :- Ikram Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Ulajhan Singh Bind,Purushottam Dixit Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Rahul Chaturvedi,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA and perused the record.

¶6

This is second bail application of the applicant. The earlier bail application of the applicant was rejected by this Court by order dated 15.10.2019, which is quoted herein below:-

¶7

"Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA and perused the record.

¶8

Submission made by the counsel that the FIR was got registered u/s 452, 376-D IPC against Ikram and one other person. It is further submitted that after investigation, the police has submitted a charge sheet u/s 376, 452 IPC only against Ikram.

¶9

Under the changed circumstances, learned counsel for the applicant does not want to press the present bail application.

¶10

Accordingly, the present bail application is dismissed as not pressed."

¶11

Now by means of the present application, the applicant who is involved in case crime no. 404 of 2019, under Sections 452 and 376 IPC, P.S. Quarshi, District- Aligarh is seeking enlargement on bail during the trial.

¶12

Learned counsel for the applicant in support of his application for bail submits that the applicant is innocent. He has been falsely implicated. It is that the FIR was got registered on 09.05.2019 under Sections 452 and 376D against Ikram and one other.

¶13

Sri Purshottam Dixit, learned counsel for the applicant while pressing the pressing the second bail application submits that the appellant and the victim has now married. The Nikahnama dated 02.09.2018 is annexed as Annexure-1 to the application. There is two affidavits of Abdul Hakim and Hafiz Abdul Hakim of Hathras who are the witnesses and stated that the applicant and victim have now resided as husband and wife. On the earlier occasion, the Court has directed to learned AGA to verify this fact.

¶14

Today learned AGA has filed counter affidavit sworn by S.I.-Sri Manoj Yadav, P.S. Quarshi, District Aligarh who verified that both of them are residing as husband and wife. The applicant is in jail since 05.07.2019

¶15

and has no criminal antecedents except the present one.

¶16

Learned AGA opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the aforesaid facts and the legal submissions as argued by the learned counsel for the applicant.

¶17

The submissions made by learned counsel for the applicant, prima facie, quite appealing and convincing for the purpose of bail only.

¶18

Keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, I am of the view that the applicant has made out a fit case for bail.

¶19

Let the applicant Ikram , be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions which are being imposed in the interest of justice:-

¶20

(i) THE APPLICANT SHALL FILE AN UNDERTAKING TO THE EFFECT THAT HE/SHE SHALL NOT SEEK ANY ADJOURNMENT ON THE DATE FIXED FOR EVIDENCE WHEN THE WITNESSES ARE PRESENT IN COURT. IN CASE OF DEFAULT OF THIS CONDITION, IT SHALL BE OPEN FOR THE TRIAL COURT TO TREAT IT AS ABUSE OF LIBERTY OF BAIL AND PASS ORDERS IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW.

¶21

(ii) THE APPLICANT SHALL REMAIN PRESENT BEFORE THE TRIAL COURT ON EACH DATE FIXED, EITHER PERSONALLY OR THROUGH HIS/HER COUNSEL. IN CASE OF HIS/HER ABSENCE, WITHOUT SUFFICIENT CAUSE, THE TRIAL COURT MAY PROCEED AGAINST HIM/HER UNDER SECTION 229-A IPC.

¶22

(iii) IN CASE, THE APPLICANT MISUSES THE LIBERTY OF BAIL DURING TRIAL AND IN ORDER TO SECURE HIS/HER PRESENCE PROCLAMATION UNDER SECTION 82 CR.P.C., MAY BE ISSUED AND IF APPLICANT FAILS TO APPEAR BEFORE THE COURT ON THE DATE FIXED IN SUCH PROCLAMATION, THEN, THE TRIAL COURT SHALL INITIATE PROCEEDINGS AGAINST HIM/HER, IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW, UNDER SECTION 174-A IPC.

¶23

(iv) THE APPLICANT SHALL REMAIN PRESENT, IN PERSON, BEFORE THE TRIAL COURT ON DATES FIXED FOR (1) OPENING OF THE CASE, (2) FRAMING OF CHARGE AND (3) RECORDING OF STATEMENT UNDER SECTION 313 CR.P.C. IF IN THE OPINION OF THE TRIAL COURT ABSENCE OF THE APPLICANT IS DELIBERATE OR WITHOUT SUFFICIENT CAUSE, THEN IT SHALL BE OPEN FOR THE TRIAL COURT TO TREAT SUCH DEFAULT AS ABUSE OF LIBERTY OF BAIL AND PROCEED AGAINST THE HIM/HER IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW.

¶24

(v) THE TRIAL COURT MAY MAKE ALL POSSIBLE EFFORTS/ENDEAVOUR AND TRY TO CONCLUDE THE TRIAL WITHIN A PERIOD OF ONE YEAR AFTER THE RELEASE OF THE APPLICANT.

¶25

However, it is made clear that any wilful violation of above conditions by the applicant, shall have serious repercussion on his/her bail so granted by this court and the trial court is at liberty to cancel the bail, after recording the reasons for doing so, in the given case of any of the condition mentioned above.

¶26

Order Date :- 24.11.2020

¶27

Abhishek Sri.

Ikram v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ikram 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

Imrat Vs State of U.P.

Smt Vidya Devi Vs State of U.P.

Subhawati Devi Vs State of U.P.

Harsh Vs State of U.P. and Another

Raj Kumar Vs State of U.P.

Smt Ramayan Shri and Another Vs State of Up