Allowed

Shyamu S/O Ram Kumar v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin Secy. Home Deptt.

Allahabad HC31 May 2022/5544/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this bail application, the court examined the FIR regarding alleged forced prostitution and attempted murder where the prosecutrix's husband suffered paralysis. Finding the allegations of a false case credible and the prosecution attempt weak, the court granted bail to the accused applicant.

What did the court decide?

The applicant was released on bail upon furnishing a personal bond and two local and reliable sureties, subject to strict conditions regarding court appearances and arrest warrants for non-appearance.

Shyamu S/O Ram Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin… — Cheating and Forgery | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 12

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 5544 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Shyamu S/O Ram Kumar Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin Secy. Home Deptt. Counsel for Applicant :- Vikrant Prakash Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar Singh,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the accused-applicant as well as learned Additional Government Advocate and gone through the entire record.

¶6

By means of this application under Section 439 CrPC, the accused-applicant seeks bail in FIR No.0353 of 2021, under Sections 147, 452, 354B, 506 and 376 IPC lodged at Police Station Imaliya Sultanpur, District Sitapur.

¶7

The accused-applicant is brother-in-law (younger brother) of husband of the prosecutrix); the FIR in question came to be registered by employing provisions of Section 156(3) CrPC; it is alleged that the accused-applicant and co-accused wanted the prosecutrix to do prostitution; the accused wanted to take the prosecutrix to Delhi for the said purpose, however, she refused and, her husband said that till he was alive, his wife (prosecutrix) cannot be forced for prostitution; on 08.11.2020, at around 5 p.m. the accused-applicant and co-accused came to house of the prosecutrix and administered some injection to husband of the prosecutrix as a result thereof, he got paralyzed. It is also said that the accused-applicant molested her and torn her blouse etc; when children of the prosecutrix raised alarm, neighbours came there and the accused-applicant and coaccused left the place of the incident.

¶8

4 Along with the bail application, statement of Dr. Ramswaroop Tandon, who treated husband of the prosecutrix, has been placed on record as Annexure-6, which discloses that husband of the prosecutrix suffered from paralytic attack for which he was treated by the said doctor. The doctor has specifically stated that husband of the prosecutrix was not treated for any reaction of an injection. In the FIR no allegation of rape was made by the prosecutrix, however, in her statement recorded under Section 164 CrPC she alleged rape by the accused-applicant.

¶9

Considering the relationship between the accused-applicant and the prosecutrix and also the fact that the prosecutrix tried to set-up a false case against the accused-applicant and co-accused of administering some injection to her husband, whereas her

¶10

husband suffered from paralytic attack, this Court finds it an appropriate case for enlarging the accused-applicant on bail who has been languishing in jail since 08.03.2022.

¶11

Let applicant- Shyamu , accused of above-mentioned FIR/crime number, be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two local and reliable sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Court concerned with the following conditions, which are imposed in the interest of justice:-

¶12

(i) the applicant(s) shall file an undertaking to the effect that he 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;

¶13

(ii). the applicant(s) 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;

¶14

(iii). in case, the applicant(s) misuse(s) the liberty of bail and in order to secure his presence proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued and the applicant(s) fail(s) 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; and

¶15

(iv) the applicant(s) 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 default of this condition is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of his bail and proceed against him in accordance with law.

¶16

Order Date :- 31.5.2022

¶17

MVS/-

¶18

Digitally signed by MANOJ VIKRAM SINGH CHAUHAN Date: 2022.05.31 18:41:38 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Shyamu S/O Ram Kumar v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin Secy. Home Deptt.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shyamu S/O Ram Kumar v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin Secy. Home Deptt.

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

Shivam Vs State of U.P. through Secretary Dept. of Home Secretariat Lucknow and Ors.

Ram Dhiraj Vs State of U.P.

Aman Vs State of U.P., through the Principle Sec. Home Dept Civil Secrt. Lucknow and 3 Others

Smt. Huma Hussain (Wric No. 23838 of 2021) Vs State of U.P. Thru. Collector Ambedkar Nagar and 4 Others

Amarnath S/O Manohar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Home

Raja @ Adnan Vs State of U.P. and Others