Suraj v. State of U.P.
Case brief
What is this about?
Single judge allowed bail to Suraj accused in rape and poisoning case. Court cited Dataram Singh precedent without expressing opinion on merits due to heavy dockets, subject to standard bail conditions.
What did the court decide?
Release on personal bond and two local sureties of like amount, subject to standard conditions against tampering and further crimes.
What the court decided
Court No. - 90
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 28134 of 2020
Applicant :- Suraj Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Vinay Prakash Shukla,Durga Prasad Tiwari Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Deepak Verma,J.
Heard Sri Vinay Prakash Shukla, learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material on record.
The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant- Suraj with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No.472 of 2020, registered under Sections 328, 376, 452, 506 I.P.C., Police Station Khurja Nagar, District Bulandshahar during pendency of the trial.
As per prosecution version, applicant induced some toxic substance and committed rape on victim and took some videographs and he continuously committed rape on her for about six months.
Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the F.I.R. is highly belated and no specific reason has been given in the F.I.R. regarding delay; when the victim became pregnant then she lodged the present F.I.R.; the victim is a married lady having her own children. It is next submitted that the statement of victim recorded under Sections 161 Cr.P.C. and 164 Cr.P.C. are not corroborating the facts narrated in the F.I.R. as well as the medical report; since husband of the victim took Rs.30,000/- from the applicant and when he demanded back his money then in retaliation she lodged the present F.I.R.; the applicant has not made physical relation with the victim and only to pressurize and with bad intention not to pay the amount, she lodged a false F.I.R. against the applicant. There is no prospect of trial of the present case being concluded in near future due to heavy dockets. It is next submitted that there is no possibility of fleeing away of the applicant from the judicial custody or tampering with the witnesses and, in case, the applicant is enlarged on bail, the applicant shall not misuse the liberty of bail. It is also contended that the applicant is languishing in jail since 18.06.2020.
Issues for consideration
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the applicant is entitled to bail considering the belated FIR, contradictory statements, and prospect of delayed trial.
Whether the corroborative evidence warrants rejection of the bail application under the cited Supreme Court precedent.
Parties & counsel
- applicant
Suraj
- respondent
State of U.P.
Coram
Deepak Verma
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
- Court
- Allahabad HC
- Decided on
- · October
- Registered
- Case no.
- BAIL/28134/2020
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court