Allowed

Imam Husain @ Bhuttu v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC16 Nov 2022BAIL/36494/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This bail application was allowed in a Section 376 IPC case where the victim was a major consenting adult. The court found the victim consenting over a six-year relationship and noted investigation completion and no flight risk, granting bail subject to conditions.

What did the court decide?

The applicant was released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties subject to conditions of attending trial, not tampering with witnesses, and not indulging in illegal activiti

Imam Husain @ Bhuttu Vs State of U.P. — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 64

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 36494 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Imam Husain @ Bhuttu Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Satya Dheer Singh Jadaun,Dhananjay Shukla Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Rajiv Gupta,J.

¶5

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

¶6

This bail application has been filed by the applicant seeking bail in Case Crime No. 66 of 2022, under Section 376, 506 IPC, Police Station Manikpur, District Chitrakoot, during pendency of trial.

¶7

Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant is wholly innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case due to ulterior motive.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant has next submitted that the victim is a major girl, aged about 22 years and she, in the FIR, has stated that the applicant on false promise of marriage, has made physical relations with her and has sexually exploited her and on 29.03.2022, the applicant had left her at Panchvati Dhaba promising that he will return back after arranging some money.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicant has next drawn the attention of the Court to the statement of the victim recorded under Sections 161 and 164 CrPC, in which, she has categorically stated that she is a major girl, aged about 22 years and on false promise of marriage, the applicant had made physical relations with her and when, she raised her grievance in the Police Station, the applicant agreed to marry her but later, did not solemnize marriage with her and extended death threats to her and her family members.

¶10

Learned counsel for the applicant has next submitted that the victim is a major girl, aged about 22 years and in fact, she made consensual physical relations with the applicant for the last more than six years.

¶11

Learned counsel for the applicant has next submitted that looking to the allegations made in the FIR and the statement of the victim recorded under Sections 161 and 164 CrPC, the victim appears to be a consensual party.

¶12

Learned counsel for the applicant has next submitted that the applicant is in jail since 16.06.2022 and has no criminal history to his credit. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and will co-operate in the trial by all means. The charge-sheet has already been submitted and there is no chance of applicant fleeing away from judicial process or tampering with the evidence, as such, he be released on bail.

¶13

Per contra, learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the facts that the victim is a major and is consensual physical relations with the applicant for last more than six years as evident from her statement recorded under Sections 161 and 164 CrPC.

¶14

Having considered the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and from perusal of the record, it is evident that the victim is a major girl, aged about 22 years. It is alleged that on false promise of marriage, the applicant made consensual physical relations with the victim, which continued for the last more than six years and when the applicant refused to marry her, the instant case has been registered. The victim appears to be a consenting party and looking to the long period for which the victim had been in consensual relationship with the applicant, I am of the view that the applicant has prima facie made out a case for bail.

¶15

Moreover, the investigation has already been completed and the charge-sheet has also been submitted. The applicant is in jail since 16.06.2022 and has no criminal history to his credit. There is no chance of applicant fleeing away from judicial process or tampering with the evidence.

¶16

In the backdrop of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, I am of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. Let the applicant Imam Husain @ Bhuttu be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to the following conditions:-

¶17

The applicant shall continue to attend and co-operate in

¶18

the trial pending before the court concerned on the date fixed after release.

¶19

The applicant shall not tamper with the witnesses.

¶20

The applicant shall not indulge in any illegal activities during the bail period.

¶21

It is further directed that the identity, status and residence proof of the sureties be verified by the authorities concerned before they are accepted.

¶22

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the trial court will be at liberty to cancel the bail.

¶23

The bail application is accordingly allowed.

¶24

Order Date :- 16.11.2022 Nadim

¶25

Digitally signed by NADIM ALAM Date: 2022.11.16 17:19:53 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Imam Husain @ Bhuttu v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Imam Husain @ Bhuttu 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

Kaptan Singh Vs State of U.P.

Sarfaraz Alam Vs State of U.P.

Somendra Alias Puneet Vs State of U.P.

Basant @ Raghvendra Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Devanshu Kumar Maan and 3 Others Vs State of U.P through Secretary Home and Another

Devanshu Kumar Maan and 3 Others Vs State of U.P through Secretary (Home) and Another