Allowed

Sahil v. State of U.P.Ikrarussamad

Allahabad HC6 May 2022BAIL/3781/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a bail application filed by Sahil in a case involving offences under Sections 376, 120B, 452, 504, and 506 of the IPC. After evaluating the prima facie facts and applying Supreme Court ratios, the bench directed the order to be verified by the trial court and be placed to its absolute disposal.

What did the court decide?

Application allowed; applicant to be released on bail subject to personal bond, two sureties, and conditions to appear in court and not tamper with evidence.

Sahil Vs State of U.P.Ikrarussamad — Cheque Dishonour | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 72

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 3781 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Sahil Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.Ikrarussamad Counsel for Applicant :- Suresh Chandra Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Rohit Shukla

¶4

Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Pachori,J.

¶5

Heard Shri Saurabh Pandey, Advocate holding brief of Shri Suresh Chandra Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State, Shri Rohit Shukla, learned counsel for the first informant and perused the material on record.

¶6

The present bail application has been filed on behalf of applicant Sahil under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No. 933 of 2021 for offence punishable under Sections 376, 120B, 452, 504, 506 of the Indian Penal Code, registered at Police Station Kosikalan, District Mathura, during pendency of the trial, after rejecting the bail application of the applicant by Additional Sessions Judge/F.T.C.-1, Mathura vide order dated 11.1.2022.

¶7

Brief facts of the case are that the First Information Report dated 16.12.2021 has been lodged by the victim, aged about 20 years under Sections 354, 452, 504, 506, 120-B, IPC stating therein that she knew the applicant earlier to the incident. On 4.12.2021 she was alone in her house. Her mother has gone outside the house for some urgent work and her brother Gulfan has gone to market. At about 9.00 p.m. when the victim was alone, the applicant entered forcibly in the house and molested her. She objected the aforesaid act of the applicant. In between her brother Gulfan returned from market. The applicant started to abuse her brother and fled away from the house after threatening him with dire consequences.

¶8

After lodging the first information report, statement of the victim under Section 161, Cr.P.C. was recorded on 17.12.2021. Medical examination of the victim was conducted on 17.12.2021. Statement of the victim under Section 164, Cr.P.C. was recorded on 20.12.2021. After recording the statements of the prosecution witnesses, charge sheet has been submitted against the applicant on 3.1.2022 and the Investigating Officer has exonerated the named co-accused Majid. Applicant was

¶9

arrested on 19.12.2021.

¶10

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case due to ulterior motive. First information report has been lodged by the victim after about 12 days of the incident. As per allegation of FIR, there is no whisper about the allegation of rape against the applicant. It is further submitted that there is material contradiction and improvement in the allegation of FIR as well as statements of the victim recorded under Sections 161 & 164, Cr.P.C. It is further submitted that in her statement, victim has stated that she made physical relation with the applicant prior to two years of the incident on the basis of false pretext of marriage. It is further submitted that the applicant is resident of Town Faridabad, Haryana. It is further submitted that the applicant is relative of the victim. Age of the applicant was 21 years at the time of incident.

¶11

He has next argued that the applicant has criminal history of two cases, which have been explained in para No. 4 of the supplementary affidavit. and if the applicant is released on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶12

Per contra , learned A.G.A. and learned counsel for the first informant have supported the order passed by the Sessions court and vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of bail to the applicant and submits that the allegations involved are very serious in nature and the delay in lodging the FIR cannot be said to be fatal to the case at this juncture while considering the application of bail. But they could not point out any material to the contrary. They further submit that in case the applicant is released on bail, he will again indulge in similar activities and will misuse the liberty of bail.

¶13

After considering the facts of the present case it prima facie appears that;

¶14

(a) The victim was admittedly major at the time of incident;

¶15

(b) First information report has been lodged by the victim under Sections 354, 452, 504, 506, 120-B, IPC and there is no whisper about the allegation of rape against the applicant;

¶16

(c) There is material contradiction and improvement in the allegation of FIR as well as statement of the victim under Section 161 & 164, Cr.P.C. It would not be appropriate to discuss the same at this stage;

¶17

(d) Age of the applicant was 21 years at the time of incident and

¶18

he was relative of the victim;

¶19

(e) The victim was well known to the applicant prior to two years of the incident.

¶20

It is a settled law that while granting bail, the court has to keep in mind the nature of accusation, the nature of the evidence in support thereof, the severity of the punishment which conviction will entail, the character of the accused, the circumstances which are peculiar to the accused, his role and involvement in the offence, his involvement in other cases and reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being tampered with.

¶21

Taking into account the totality of facts and keeping in mind, the ratio of the Apex Court's judgment in the case of State of Rajasthan v. Balchand @ Baliay (1977) 4 SCC 308, Gudikanti Narasimhulu And Ors., v. Public Prosecutor, High Court Of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 1978 SC 429, Ram Govind Upadhyay v. Sudarshan Singh & Ors., (2002) 3 SCC 598, Prasanta Kumar Sarkar v. Ashis Chatterjee & Anr., (2010) 14 SCC 496 and Mahipal v. Rajesh Kumar & Anr., (2020) 2 SCC 118 , the larger interest of the public/State and other circumstances, but without expressing any opinion on the merits, I am of the view that it is a fit case for grant of bail. Hence, the present bail application is allowed.

¶22

Let applicant, Sahil be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on his furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to the following conditions:

¶23

(i) 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.

¶24

(ii) The applicant shall not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witnesses.

¶25

(iii) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 313 of Cr.P.C.

¶26

(iv) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in the trial court.

¶27

(v) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel.

¶28

(vi) The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal activity or commission of any crime after being released on bail.

¶29

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail. If in the opinion of the trial court that absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed in accordance with law.

¶30

The trial court may make all possible efforts/endeavour and try to conclude the trial expeditiously in accordance with law after the release of the applicant, keeping in view the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Alakh Alok Srivastava v. Union of India & Anr., AIR 2018 SC 2440, if there is no other legal impediment.

¶31

It is made clear that the observations made in this order are limited to the purpose of determination of this bail application and will in no way be construed as an expression on the merits of the case. The trial court shall be absolutely free to arrive at its independent conclusions on the basis of evidence led unaffected by anything said in this order.

¶32

The party shall file computer generated copy of such order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad, self attested by the applicant alongwith a self attested identity proof of the said person (preferably Aadhar Card) mentioning the mobile number to which the said Aadhar Card is linked.

¶33

The concerned Court/Authority/Official shall verify the authenticity of such computerized copy of the order from the official website of High Court Allahabad and shall make a declaration of such verification in writing.

¶34

Order Date :- 6.5.2022 T. Sinha

¶35

Digitally signed by TRIPTI SINHA Date: 2022.05.09 17:45:22 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Sahil v. State of U.P.Ikrarussamad

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sahil v. State of U.P.Ikrarussamad

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

Tularam Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Rakesh Garg Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Phoolendra Singh Vs State of U.P.

Anil Bhati Vs State of U.P.

Jahageer Vs State of U.P.

Rishabh Sareen Vs State of U.P. and Another