Allowed

Arvind v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC3 Dec 2020BAIL/28743/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a bail application under IPC Sections 376D and 323 arising from an alleged rape case, this court granted bail to the applicant citing parity with co-accused already granted bail, noting the victim had no physical injuries and no disputed facts emerged.

What did the court decide?

Released on bail upon executing a personal bond with two sureties, subject to non-tampering with witnesses and attending trial.

Arvind Vs State of U.P. — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2020)

¶1

Court No. - 76

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 28743 of 2020

¶3

Applicant :- Arvind Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Karunesh Narayan Tripathi 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. 854 of 2019, under Sections 376D and 323 I.P.C., P.S. Izzatnagar, district-Bareilly, is seeking enlargement on bail during the trial.

¶7

The first information report was lodged by the victim herself against three persons including applicant, alleging therein that on 7.11.2019 at about 8:00 p.m. when she was returning her house after doing her job. On the way the accused persons asked her to sit on their motorcycle, then they carried her away to a lonely place and committed rape with her repeatedly.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is absolutely innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case due to some ulterior motive. The victim was a married lady. The medical report of the victim does not corroborate the allegation of rape. No marks of violence or injury were found on her body by the doctor who had examined her. Further submission is that similarly placed other co-accused Sonu and Rohit have already been enlarged on bail by another Bench of this Court vide orders dated 9.11.2020 and 17.11.2020 respectively passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application Nos. 23294 of 2020 and 32821 of 2020, copy of the bail order produced by learned counsel for the applicant is taken on record. He lastly submits that since the role of the applicant is identical to that of co-accused Sonu and Rohit, who have already been enlarged on bail, he is also entitled to be enlarged on bail on the ground of parity.

¶9

The prayer for bail has vehemently been opposed by learned A.G.A. However, the aforesaid factual aspect of the matter has not been disputed by him.

¶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, Arvind 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

The applicant will continue to attend and co-operate in the trial pending before the court concerned on the date fixed after release.

¶13

He will not tamper with the witnesses.

¶14

He will not indulge in any illegal activities during the bail period.

¶15

It is further directed that the identity, status and residence proof of the sureties be verified by the authorities concerned before they are accepted.

¶16

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

¶17

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.

¶18

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 writing.

¶19

Order Date :- 3.12.2020 Faridul

Arvind v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Arvind 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Somvir Chaudhari @ Sonu Chaudhari Vs State of U.P.

Chandan Bind Vs State of U.P.

Satendra@ Bholai Vs State of U.P.

Shravan Kumar Vs State of U.P. and Another

Vivek Yadav Vs State of U.P. and Another

Kartik Vs State of U.P. and Another