Dismissed

Ikram and 5 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC12 Jul 2021ABAIL/6838/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Hon'ble Rahul Chaturvedi, J. rejected the anticipatory bail application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. citing clear allegations of gang rape in recorded statements. The judge also imposed a fine of Rs. 10,000 on the applicant for counsel's false statement that no victim statement was recorded, which necessitated summoning an officer unnecessarily.

What did the court decide?

Application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. rejected. Fine of Rs. 10,000 imposed on applicant.

Ikram and 5 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another — Anticipatory Bail | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 67

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 6838 of 2021

¶3

Applicant :- Ikram And 5 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Mohd Faiz Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Rahul Chaturvedi,J.

¶5

Pursuant to the order of this Court dated 11.06.2021 Sri R.R.Kateria, Inspector, C.B.C.I.D., Meerut is present.

¶6

Learned AGA after the service of its copy upon the concerned and furnished the same in the Court. The said counter affidavit is sworn by Sri R.R.Kateria, Inspector, C.B.C.I.D., Meerut, the same officer who is present in the Court today.

¶7

On the earlier occasion, it seems that a wrong and false argument were placed by learned counsel for the applicants that till date no statements either under Section 161 or 164 Cr.P.C. was recorded of the victim by the Investigating Officer concerned, thus, the Court has summoned the said officer.

¶8

The present counter affidavit clearly indicates that the victim's statement under the aforesaid sections of the IPC are on record, which were annexed as CA-1 to the counter affidavit. Fact remain that learned counsel for the applicants has put the Court in dark by giving a wrong picture and the Court on this assumption have summoned the officer concerned. This is a irresponsible statement advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant leading to this unfortunate incident. It is expected that all learned counsel, who are advancing their statements must take a due care and check its authenticity before advancing the same before the Court. They are not suppose to give any statement which is in the shape of gossip or by way of hearsay.

¶9

After going through the 161 Cr.P.C. statement and 164 Cr.P.C. statement by which the involvement of

¶10

the applicant in the commission of the gang rape is clearly alleged by the victim herself and thus, I do not find any good reason to exercise my powers under Section 438 Cr.P.C. and accordingly, the present application under the aforesaid sections stands REJECTED .

¶11

It has been contended by the counsel that proceeding under Section 82 and 83 Cr.P.C. is being issued against the applicants and the police is all powerful to decide the future of the named accused persons in accordance with law.

¶12

Since the irresponsible statement has been given by the learned counsel for the applicant by which an Government Officer of the C.B.C.I.D. has to rush from Meerut to Prayagraj and therefore, the Court imposes fine of Rs. 10,000/- upon the applicant which would be deposited by the applicants through their counsel within 10 days from today in the office of Registrar General, High Court, Allahabad.

¶13

The future appearance of Sri R.R.Kateria, Inspector, C.B.C.I.D., Meerut is dispensed with till further orders of this Court.

¶14

Order Date :- 12.7.2021 Abhishek Sri.

Ikram and 5 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ikram and 5 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

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

Kapoor Chandra Maurya Vs State of U.P.

Vinod Kumar @ Pavva Vs State of U.P.

Manoj Kumar Prajapati Vs State of U.P.

Mandeep Vs State of U.P.and Another

Mohd. Abu Salim Vs State of U.P.

Sanoj Vs State of U.P.