Dismissed

Azam @ Aazeem Khan v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC4 Jun 2021ABAIL/5899/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court dismissed an anticipatory bail application filed by an accused apprehending arrest in a rape case. Despite the applicant's plea that the FIR was a counter-blast to a restitution case and his denial of guilt, the court found the victim's statement supported the prosecution. Consequently, the court refused to exercise its discretionary power to grant bail due to the gravity of the charges.

What did the court decide?

Application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. is rejected and no anticipatory bail is granted.

Azam @ Aazeem Khan Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others — Anticipatory Bail | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 42

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 5899 of 2021

¶3

Applicant :- Azam @ Aazeem Khan Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Mohit Singh,Kaushal Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Rohit Ranjan Agarwal,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Mohit Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and learned AGA for the State.

¶6

This Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. has been moved by the applicant seeking anticipatory bail in Case Crime No. 522 of 2020, under Sections 376/506 IPC, Police Station Nakhasa, District Sambhal, during the pendency of the investigation.

¶7

Facts revealed from the record are that victim was married to one Kasim on 04.11.2018. Her husband is residing at Mumbai and doing business of fruits. The allegation of rape to have been committed upon her on 10.06.2020 by the applicant.

¶8

Sri Mohit Singh, learned counsel for the applicant has contended that the husband of the victim had filed a case being Case No. 298 of 2020 for restitution of conjugal rights before the court at Chandausi on 29.09.2020 and present FIR is counter blast to the same. He further submits that the applicant is innocent and falsely implicated in the present case. It is further submitted that the applicant has apprehension of imminent arrest and in case, applicant is released on anticipatory bail, he will not misuse the liberty and would cooperate with the investigation.

¶9

Refuting the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA has submitted that the FIR clearly discloses the offence and the statement of victim, who is major, has been recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. on 29.10.2020 wherein she has supported the version of the FIR, as such, present anticipatory bail application is liable to be rejected.

¶10

In the light of above, looking to the facts and circumstances of this case, submissions of learned counsel for the parties as mentioned above, taking into consideration the role assigned to the applicant as per prosecution case, gravity and nature of accusation, this Court is of the view that no case for exercising

¶11

its discretionary power under Section 438 Cr.P.C. is made out in favour of applicant.

¶12

Accordingly, this application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. is rejected.

¶13

Order Date :- 4.6.2021 Shekhar

Azam @ Aazeem Khan v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Azam @ Aazeem Khan v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

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

Rampal Vs State of U.P.

Pankaj Tomar Vs State of U.P. and Another

Upendra Vs State of U.P.

Arun Kumar Yadav and 4 Others Vs State of U.P.

Rekha Devi Vs State of U.P.

Saurabh Pal Singh @ Sumit and Another Vs State of U.P.