Allowed

Suraaj Khan @ Suraaj Malik v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC11 Feb 2022BAIL/3806/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court entertained a bail application under Section 439 CrPC filed by Suraaj Khan in a rape case involving Sections 328, 376, and 506 IPC. Noting an inordinate delay of five years in lodging the FIR despite prior incidents, the court found no convincing material to indicate tampering. The application was allowed with specific conditions to prevent interference with evidence and ensure tria

What did the court decide?

The applicant was released on bail by furnishing a personal bond and two sureties with specific conditions regarding conduct, attendance, and prohibition on seeking adjournments during evidence.

Suraaj Khan @ Suraaj Malik Vs State of U.P. — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 88

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 3806 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Suraaj Khan @ Suraaj Malik Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Krishna Kant Dubey,Santosh Kumar Dubey

¶4

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Santosh Kumar Dubey

¶5

Hon'ble Samit Gopal,J.

¶6

Heard Sri Krishna Kant Dubey and Sri Santosh Kumar Dubey, learned counsels for the applicant, Sri Bade Lal Bind, learned counsel for the State and perused the material on record.

¶7

This bail application under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the applicant Suraaj Khan @ Suraaj Malik, seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No. 0310 of 2021, under Sections 328, 376, 506 I.P.C., registered at Police Station Jewar, District Gautam Buddha Nagar.

¶8

In the cause list, the name of Sri Santosh Kumar Dubey, Advocate is also printed as learned counsel appearing for the respondent but he is appearing only for the applicant.

¶9

Office is directed to correct the same and make a note in the order sheet.

¶10

The prosecution case as per the First Information Report lodged on 25.05.2021 by the prosecutrix herself naming the applicant as only accused is that prior to 12th May, 2017 the applicant was having friendship, called her on the highway and then took her with him and gave her cold drink. After consuming the same, she became unconscious and then she was raped. The applicant captured her photographs and made a video also. Then on 12th May, 2017 he again called her at the same place but she refused and then he threatened her to make the video viral. She fearing about it and went there. He has been continuously committing rape since last 3-4 years.

¶11

Learned counsel for the applicant argued that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is argued that the prosecutrix is aged about 25 years as stated by her in her statement under Section 161 Cr.PC. and also in her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. In the statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. she stated that she is knowing applicant

¶12

since 2017. The first incident of rape of 10th April, 2017. It is argued that the allegation that the applicant falsely disclosed his name as Suraj Malik, is also false allegation. It is argued that the prosecutrix was a consenting party. There is an inordinate delay in lodging of the First Information Report. He further argued that the applicant has no criminal history as stated in para 14 of the affidavit and is in jail since 28.05.2021.

¶13

Per contra, learned counsel for the State opposed the prayer for bail and argued that the applicant is named in the First Information Report and there are allegations against him.

¶14

After having heard learned counsels for the parties and perusing the records, it is evident that the first incident of rape has been committed sometimes prior to 12th May, 2017. The applicant and the first informant/prosecutrix were in friendship since 2016. The First Information Report has been lodged on 25.05.2021 which is after five years.

¶15

Looking to the facts and circumstances of this case, the nature of evidence and also the absence of any convincing material to indicate the possibility of tampering with the evidence, this Court is of the view that the applicant may be enlarged on bail.

¶16

Let the applicant Suraaj Khan @ Suraaj Malik , be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties ( one of the sureties of the applicant will be his family member and the other to be of local person) each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions which are being imposed in the interest of justice:-

¶17

i) The applicant will not tamper with prosecution evidence and will not harm or harass the victim/complainant in any manner whatsoever.

¶18

ii) The applicant will abide the orders of court, will attend the court on every date and will not delay the disposal of trial in any manner whatsoever.

¶19

(iii) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the date fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law.

¶20

(iv) The applicant will not misuse the liberty of bail in any manner whatsoever. In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence

¶21

proclamation under section 82 Cr.P.C., may be issued and if applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under section 174-A I.P.C.

¶22

(V) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on dates fixed for (1) opening of the case, (2) framing of charge and (3) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. If in the opinion of the trial court 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 against him in accordance with law and the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229A IPC.

¶23

(vi) The trial court may make all possible efforts/endeavour and try to conclude the trial expeditiously after the release of the applicant.

¶24

The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be verified by court concerned and in case of breach of any of the conditions mentioned above, court concerned will be at liberty to cancel the bail and send the applicant to prison.

¶25

The bail application is allowed.

¶26

Order Date :- 11.2.2022 M. ARIF

¶27

(Samit Gopal, J.)

¶28

Digitally signed by MOHAMMAD ARIF Date: 2022.02.11 18:42:51 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Suraaj Khan @ Suraaj Malik v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Suraaj Khan @ Suraaj Malik 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

Aman Kumar Vs State of U.P.

Anil Vs State of U.P.

Narendra Vs State of U.P. though it Principal Secretary (Home)Lucknow

Smt. Jaswanti Vs State of U.P.

Mukesh Kumar Chaturvedi Vs State of U.P. thr. Prin. Secy. (Home) Govt. of U.P. and another

Anshul Vs State of U.P through Secretary Home and Another