Maqsood Ali @ Bhayyan Kunjada Vs State of U.P.and Another

Court No. - 36

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 32434 of 2020

Applicant :- Maqsood Ali @ Bhayyan Kunjada Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Yash Pratap Singh,Birendra Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Ramesh Kumar Mishra

¶4

Hon'ble Ali Zamin,J.

¶5

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

¶6

The present bail application has been filed by the applicant with a prayer to enlarge him on bail in Case Crime No.239 of 2019, under Sections 376, 376(2)(1), 323, 506 I.P.C. & 3/4 POCSO Act, Police Station Charwa, District Kaushambi.

¶7

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant is father of the victims, according to F.I.R. version on 16.10.2019 at about 2:00 p.m., applicant committed rape upon the victim aged about 15 years and on 17.10.2019 at about 4:00 a.m. in the night, he committed rape upon the victim aged about 18 years. In statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C., victims have reiterated the F.I.R. version but in statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C., victims have not levelled any allegation against the applicant. In additional statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C., both the victim again stated that applicant committed rape upon them. Both victim refused to conduct their medical examination. It is further submitted that according to prosecution for a month applicant used to commit rape upon them but no any complaint has been made by them. The F.I.R. is delayed five days without any plausible explanation. The applicant has not committed the alleged offence. He has been falsely implicated in the present case. There is no possibility of the applicant of fleeing away from the judicial process 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 next contended that the applicant is languishing in jail since 22.10.2019.

¶8

Per contra, learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for the informant opposed the bail prayer of the applicant but could not dispute the aforesaid facts.

¶9

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case as well as submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties, statement of victims under Section 164 Cr.P.C., without expressing any opinion on merit of the case, the applicant is

¶10

entitled for bail, let the applicant- Maqsood Ali @ Bhayyan Kunjada involved in aforesaid case crime be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two local sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned, subject to the following conditions :-

¶11

(i) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he will not tamper with the evidence and will not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witnesses and will cooperate with the trial. The applicant shall not seek any adjournment on the dates 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.

¶12

(ii) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶13

(iii) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued and the applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶14

(iv) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) 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 him in accordance with law.

¶15

The party shall file computer generated copy of such order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad.

¶16

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. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.

¶17

Order Date :- 9.12.2020 Jitendra

Maqsood Ali @ Bhayyan Kunjada v. State of U.P.and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Maqsood Ali @ Bhayyan Kunjada v. State of U.P.and Another

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

Smt. Guddi Devi Vs State of U.P.

Sikandar Vs State of U.P. and Another

Nikhil Vs State of U.P. and Another

Shudhir Yadav Vs State of U.P. and Another

Mahatam Yadav Vs State of U.P.

Pappu @ Karan Vs State of U.P.