Allowed

Surendra v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC17 Dec 2021BAIL/8117/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal Misc. Bail Application filed by Surendra in a Section 376 IPC trial. The court, referring to Dataram Singh, held that the applicant made out a case for bail and ordered his release on personal bond, with sureties to be furnished later upon court restoration.

What did the court decide?

Accused Surendra released on bail on personal bond and two sureties to be verified, with sureties to be executed within one month after courts resume normal functioning.

Surendra Vs State of U.P. — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 71

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 8117 of 2021

¶3

Applicant :- Surendra Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Ganesh Kumar,Amit Kumar Verma,Manvendra Nath Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Deepak Verma,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Manvendra Nath Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶6

The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant Surendra with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No.270 of 2020, under Section 376 I.P.C., P.S. Walterganj, District Basti during pendency of the trial.

¶7

It is argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. In the First Information Report, it has been alleged that informant is married and divorced lady and on pretext of marriage, the applicant has developed physical relation with her. From the statement of the victim recorded under sections 161 & 164 Cr.P.C., it is clear that the applicant has not made any physical relation with the informant forcefully but informant consented for physical relation which was continued for two years. No evidence regarding 376 I.P.C. As per High School marksheet, she is 22 years. When the applicant refused to marry her, the informant lodged the present First Information Report against the applicant only to make pressure. The statement of the victim recorded under sections 161 & 164 Cr.P.C. are contradictory and not supporting the version of the First Information Report. The applicant is major lady and mother of one son. Only to harass the applicant, the present First Information Report has been lodged. There is no prospect of trial of the present case being concluded in near future due to heavy dockets. The applicant is not a previous convict. The applicant is languishing in jail since 06.01.2020 and in case he is enlarged on bail he will not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶8

Learned A.G.A. has opposed the bail prayer of the applicant.

¶9

Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, submissions of learned counsel for the parties and keeping in view the nature of offence, evidence, complicity of accused and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case and the mandate laid down by the Apex Court in the case of

¶10

Dataram Singh Vs. State of U.P. and another reported in (2018) 3 SCC 22 , the Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed.

¶11

Let the applicant, Surendra be released on bail in Case Crime No.270 of 2020, under Section 376 I.P.C., P.S. Walterganj, District Basti, on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions. Further, before issuing the release order, the sureties be verified.

¶12

The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence by intimidating/ pressurizing the witnesses, during the investigation or trial.

¶13

The applicant shall cooperate in the trial sincerely without seeking any adjournment.

¶14

The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal activity or commission of any crime after being released on bail.

¶15

The applicant shall be enlarged on bail on execution of personal bond without sureties till normal functioning of the courts is restored. The accused will furnish sureties to the satisfaction of the court below within a month after normal functioning of the courts are restored.

¶16

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

¶17

Order Date :- 17.12.2021/SKD

Surendra v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Surendra 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

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sanjay Kaumar Singh@ Sanju Vs State of U.P.

Hanif Qureshi @ Gattey Vs State of U.P. and Another

Sameer @ Sageer Vs State of U.P.

Rizwan Vs State of U.P.

Deepak Kumar Yadav and 3 Others Vs State of U.P.

Muzafar Urf Pacchar Vs State of U.P. and Another