Allowed

Maroof v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC16 Jul 2022BAIL/16388/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the bail application of Maroof, the brother-in-law of the victim, in a case involving charges of rape under Section 376 IPC and cruelty under Section 498A IPC arising from a family dispute over property. The court held the applicant entitled to bail and released him on personal bond with two sureties.

What did the court decide?

The applicant Maroof is released on bail by furnishing a personal bond and two sureties on specified conditions.

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

¶1

Court No. - 70

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 16388 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Maroof Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Zafar Abbas Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Harindra Pratap

¶4

Hon'ble Ajay Bhanot,J.

¶5

By means of this bail application the applicant has prayed to be enlarged on bail in Case Crime No.533 of 2021 at Police Station-Gadmukhteshwar, District-Hapur under Sections 498A, 376, 323, 506 IPC. The applicant is in jail since 29.11.2021.

¶6

The bail application of the applicant was rejected by learned Sessions Judge, Hapur on 08.03.2022. Shri Zafar Abbas, learned counsel for the applicant contends that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the instant case. The F.I.R. arises out of a family dispute over partition of ancestral property. The applicant is the brother-in-law of the victim. The F.I.R. was lodged by the victim at the instigation of certain family members to oust the claim of the applicant from the ancestral property. The applicant did not act inappropriately nor did he rape the victim. No medical evidence which corroborates forceful assault or rape has been produced by the prosecution. Learned counsel for the applicant contends that the applicant does not

¶7

have any criminal history apart from the instant case.

¶8

Shri Harindra Pratap, learned counsel for the informant who is also the victim does not dispute the aforesaid submissions.

¶9

Shri Sunil Kumar Singh, learned A.G.A. could not satisfactorily dispute the aforesaid submissions from the record. He, however, does not dispute the fact that the applicant does not have any criminal history apart from this case.

¶10

I see merit in the submissions of the learned counsel for the applicant and hold that the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail.

¶11

In the light of the preceding discussion and without making any observations on the merits of the case, the bail application is allowed.

¶12

Let the applicant-Maroof be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions.

¶13

(i) The applicant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.

¶14

(ii) The applicant will not influence any witness.

¶15

(iii) The applicant will appear before the trial court

¶16

on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted.

¶17

(iv) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶18

In case of breach of any of the above condition, the prosecution shall be at liberty to move bail cancellation application before this Court. Order Date :- 16.7.2022 Ashish Tripathi

¶19

Digitally signed by ASHISH NAYAN TRIPATHI Date: 2022.07.16 14:53:47 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Maroof v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Maroof 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Imran Vs State of U.P.

Munna Lal @ Rama Shankar Vs State of U.P.

Tinku Vs State of U.P.

Akash Ahirwar Vs State of U.P.

Sani Diwakar Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Manshukh Vs State of U.P and 3 Others