Allowed

Shakeel @ Mirchu v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC8 Sept 2022BAIL/30822/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this bail application, the court allowed the release of an applicant charged with rape, noting the delayed FIR and lack of medical corroboration, subject to standard conditions without expressing an opinion on the merits of the underlying crime.

What did the court decide?

Release on personal bond and two heavy sureties subject to standard conditions to prevent tampering with evidence or witnesses.

Shakeel @ Mirchu Vs State of U.P. and Another — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 76

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 30822 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Shakeel @ Mirchu Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Faizur Rahman Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Subhash Chandra Sharma,J.

¶5

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

¶6

It is submitted that in this case applicant has been falsely implicated by the informant/victim who was a married lady. Further submitted that there was dispute relating to transaction of money between the applicant and informant that was the reason he has been roped in this case with false allegation of committing rape after delay of 9 days from the date of occurrence without any explanation thereto. Further submitted that nothing was found during medical examination to substantiate that rape was committed with the victim. No any evidence is on record except the bald statement of the victim about committing rape by this applicant with her. There is no criminal antecedent against the applicant and he is in jail since 05.02.2021, therefore, requested for bail. In case he is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and will co-operate in trial.

¶7

Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail.

¶8

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, the evidence on record, the delay in lodging the F.I.R. and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed.

¶9

Let the applicant Shakeel @ Mirchu involved in Case Crime No.08 of 2021, under Sections 342, 376 I.P.C., Police Station Satti, District Kanpur Dehat, be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two heavy sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions.

¶10

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

¶11

The applicant will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness.

¶12

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

¶13

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.

¶14

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

¶15

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the prosecution shall be at liberty to move bail cancellation application before this Court.

¶16

Order Date :- 8.9.2022 Ashok Gupta

¶17

Digitally signed by ASHOK KUMAR GUPTA Date: 2022.09.12 17:37:59 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Shakeel @ Mirchu v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shakeel @ Mirchu 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vinod Kumar Vs State of U.P.

Arun Kumar Vs State of U.P.

Prabhakar @ Bablu Vs State of U.P.

Sandeep Vs State of U.P.

Ajay Vs State of U.P.

Smt. Rama Devi Vs State of U.P.