Allowed

Rahul v. State of U.P.and Another

Allahabad HC15 Nov 2022ABAIL/6670/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad considered an anticipatory bail application under CrPC 438. The accused sought bail in an IPC case alleging rape and attempted murder. The court noted no credible evidence against the applicant and allowed the application.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted on furnishing personal bond of Rs. 50,000 with two sureties and adhering to specified conditions.

Rahul Vs State of U.P.and Another — Cheating and Forgery | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 73

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 6670 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Rahul Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Vivek Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Raj Beer Singh,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶6

The present application has been moved seeking anticipatory bail in Case Crime no. 821 of 2021, under Sections 342, 376-D, 307, 323, 504 IPC, P.S. Tronika City, District Ghaziabad, with the prayer that in the event of arrest, applicant may be released on bail.

¶7

The first information report was lodged against applicant and co-accused Gyanchand Gurjar, Teji Gurjar and Rami Gurjar alleging that the husband of informant is not mentally stable and that on 09.12.2021 when she came at home, her husband was not there. While searching her husband, informant reached at the house of co-accused Teji Gurjar and there all the accused persons have assaulted her and co-accused Gyanchand Gurjar and Teji Gurjar committed rape upon her.

¶8

It has been argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that applicant is innocent and he has an apprehension that he may be arrested in the above-mentioned case, whereas there is no credible evidence against him. The applicant has no criminal antecedents and that no coercive process has been issued against the applicant so far. Learned counsel submitted that coaccused Gyanchand Gurjar and Teji Gurjar are real brothers and applicant is son of co-accused Gyanchand Gurjar and co-

¶9

accused Rami Gurjar is his cousin and thus, it is improbable that all the family members in the presence of women of their family, would commit rape upon informant. Referring to facts of the matter, it was stated that allegations of rape made against the accused persons are inherently improbable. Both the parties are closely related to each other. It was submitted that the husband of informant was taken to the house of co-accused Gyanchand Gurjar for providing medical help and dispute has taken place over that issue. It is further submitted that the allegations of rape have been levelled against co-accused Gyanchand Gurjar and Teji Gurjar, who have already been granted regular bail by co-ordinate Bench of this Court, copies of which are available on record. There are no allegations of rape against the applicant. Referring to facts of the matter, it was submitted that the first information report of this case has been lodged in order to exert undue pressure upon the applicant and his family members. The applicant undertakes to co-operate during investigation and trial and he would appear as and when required by the investigating agency or Court. It has been stated that in case, the applicant is granted anticipatory bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail and will co-operate during investigation and would obey all conditions of bail.

¶10

Learned A.G.A. has opposed the application for anticipatory bail.

¶11

It may be stated that in case of Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra, (2011) 1 SCC 694, it has been held by Hon'ble Supreme Court that while deciding anticipatory bail, Court must consider nature and gravity of accusation, antecedent of accused, possibility of accused to flee from justice and that Court must evaluate entire available material against the accused carefully and that the exact role of

¶12

the accused has also to be taken into consideration.

¶13

In the instant case, considering the settled principles of law regarding anticipatory bail, submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, nature of accusation, role of applicant and all attending facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion on merit of the case, a case for anticipatory bail is made out.

¶14

The anticipatory bail application is allowed.

¶15

In the event of arrest of the applicant- Rahul in the aforesaid case crime, he shall be released on anticipatory bail on his furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Station House Officer of the police station concerned/Court below concerned with the following conditions :-

¶16

(i) the applicant shall make himself available for interrogation by the police as and when required;

¶17

(ii) the applicant shall not directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him/her/them from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer;

¶18

(iii) the applicant would co-operate during investigation and trial and would not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶19

In default of any of the conditions, the Investigating Officer/prosecution shall be at liberty to file appropriate application for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to the applicant.

¶20

Order Date :- 15.11.2022/A. Tripathi

¶21

Digitally signed by AKHILESH TRIPATHI Date: 2022.11.16 10:04:22 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Rahul v. State of U.P.and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rahul 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mohammad Khalid Vs State of U.P. and Another

Mudit Saxena Vs State of U.P. and Another

Raman Verma Vs State of U.P. and Another

Garima Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Smt. Shanti Devi Vs State of U.P. and Another

Arjun Vs State of U.P.