Allowed

Naseem v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC10 Nov 2022BAIL/12493/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the second bail application of an accused charged with gang rape and rape of a major. The court noted the prosecutrix failed to appear for evidence and noted inconsistencies in her statement and lack of physical injuries supporting the rape allegations. Bail was granted subject to standard conditions.

What did the court decide?

Released on bail by furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in equal amounts, subject to specific串 conditions regarding tampering with evidence and intimidation.

Naseem Vs State of U.P. — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 73

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 12493 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Naseem Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Sushil Kumar Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Anurag Pathak,Harshit Pathak

¶4

Hon'ble Raj Beer Singh,J.

¶5

Heard Sri S.N. Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, learned counsel for the complainant and learned AGA for the State and perused the record.

¶6

It has been argued by the learned counsel that applicant is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in this case. The victim is a major girl and the facts indicate that the allegations of gang rape are not reliable. It has been stated that there is no reason why she would go at 12:00 mid night outside of her home. She has not sustained any injury on her private parts and thus, the version of victim regarding gang rape is not supported by the medical evidence. Learned counsel submitted that victim girl has substantially changed her version in her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. and general role has been assigned to applicant and co-accused persons. As per medical examination report, the age of victim girl is 18-19 years and thus, she was major. The first bail application of applicant was rejected by this Court vide order dated 16.03.2021 and trial Court was directed to expedite the trial and to decide the same as early as possible but not a single witness has been examined so far. It was stated that warrants are being issued against the complainant/prosecutrix for her appearance, so that her statement may be recorded, but she is not appearing for evidence, whereas the applicant is languishing in jail since

¶7

03.07.2020. It was further submitted that after rejection of first bail application of applicant, similarly placed co-accused Anas has already been granted bail by co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 06.09.2022, passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 31435 of 2022. It was submitted that the trial is likely to take long time and the prosecutrix herself is not appearing for evidence, whereas the applicant is languishing in jail for the last more than two years and thus, the applicant may be granted bail and that in case the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate in trial.

¶8

Learned A.G.A and learned counsel for the complainant have opposed the prayer for bail and argued that first bail application of applicant has already been rejected on merits. Learned counsel for the complainant submitted that an application for cancellation of bail of co-accused Anas has already been moved. It was submitted that it is a case of gang rape and serious allegations have been made against the applicant and co-accused.

¶9

Considering the submissions of learned counsel for the parties, nature of allegations, period of custody and all attending facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court is of the view that a case for bail is made out. Hence, the second bail application is hereby allowed.

¶10

Let the applicant Naseem involved in Case Crime No. 199 of 2020, under Sections 376-D, 120B, 506 of IPC and Section 67 Information Technology Act, P.S. Shahpur, District Muzaffar Nagar, be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions:

¶11

The applicant shall not tamper with the evidence during the trial.

¶12

2.The applicant shall not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness.

¶13

3.The applicant shall appear before the trial court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted.

¶14

The applicant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which he is accused, or suspected, of the commission of which he is suspected.

¶15

5.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 them from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶16

In case of breach of any of the above condition, the Court below shall be at liberty to cancel bail of applicant in accordance with law.

¶17

Order Date :- 10.11.2022 A. Tripathi

¶18

Digitally signed by AKHILESH TRIPATHI Date: 2022.11.10 17:11:18 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Naseem v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Naseem 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rahul Vs State of U.P.

Gaurav Vs State of U.P. and Another

Manoj Kumar Vs State of U.P.

Manjesh Vs State of U.P.

Shravan Kumar Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Bhanu Pratap Singh Vs State of U.P.